80594 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

containing hazardous materials must 

bear the endorsement ‘‘Address Service 

Requested,’’ ‘‘Forwarding Service 

Requested,’’ or ‘‘Return Service 

Requested.’’ 

2. Pieces containing Ballot Mail under 

703.8.0. 

* * * * * 

Exhibit 1.5.3 Treatment of 

Undeliverable USPS Marketing Mail 

and Parcel Select Lightweight 

Mailer endorsement USPS treatment of 

UAA pieces 

* * * * * 

‘‘Change Service Requested’’ 1 4.Option 1. 

Restrictions: 

The following restrictions apply: 

* * * * * 

[Revise the ‘‘Change Service 

Requested’’ Option 1 ‘‘Restrictions’’ 

section by adding a new number 3 to 

read as follows:] 

3. This endorsement is not valid for 

Ballot Mail under 703.8.0. 

* * * * * 

Option 2 

* * * * * 

Restrictions: 

The following restrictions apply: 

* * * * * 

[Revise the ‘‘Change Service 

Requested’’ Option 2 ‘‘Restrictions’’ 

section by adding a new number 3 to 

read as follows:] 

3. This endorsement is not valid for 

Ballot Mail under 703.8.0. 

* * * * * 

Colleen Hibbert-Kapler, 

Attorney, Ethics and Legal Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2023–25569 Filed 11–17–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 60 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2022–0481; FRL–9630–02– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AV78 

New Source Performance Standards 

Review for Secondary Lead Smelters 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is finalizing amendments 

to the new source performance 

standards (NSPS) for secondary lead 

smelters pursuant to the periodic review 

required by the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

Specifically, the EPA is finalizing 

revisions to the NSPS that applies to 

affected secondary lead smelters 

constructed, reconstructed, or modified 

after December 1, 2022 (NSPS subpart 

La). The EPA is also finalizing 

amendments to the NSPS for secondary 

lead smelters constructed, 

reconstructed, or modified after June 11, 

1973, and on or before December 1, 

2022, (NSPS subpart L). In addition, we 

are finalizing the use of EPA Method 22 

(Visual Determination of Fugitive 

Emissions from Material Sources and 

Smoke Emissions from Flares) as an 

alternative for demonstrating 

compliance with the opacity limit. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

November 20, 2023. The incorporation 

by reference (IBR) of certain 

publications listed in the rule is 

approved by the Director of the Federal 

Register as of November 20, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2022–0481. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the https://www.regulations.gov 

website. Although listed, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available electronically through https:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amber Wright, Sector Policies and 

Programs Division (D243–02), Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

109 T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 

12055, Research Triangle Park, North 

Carolina 27711; telephone number: 

(919) 541–4680; email address: 

wright.amber@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Preamble acronyms and 

abbreviations. Throughout this 

document the use of ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or 

‘‘our’’ is intended to refer to the EPA. 

We use multiple acronyms and terms in 

this preamble. While this list may not be 

exhaustive, to ease the reading of this 

preamble and for reference purposes, 

the EPA defines the following terms and 

acronyms here: 

ABR Association of Battery Recyclers 

ASTM ASTM, International 

BSER best system of emission reduction 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CBI Confidential Business Information 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DCOT digital camera opacity technique 

EJ environmental justice 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ERT Electronic Reporting Tool 

FR Federal Register 

HEPA high efficiency particulate air 

IBR incorporation by reference 

ICR information collection request 

km kilometers 

mg/dscm milligram per dry standard cubic 

meter 

NAICS North American Industry 

Classification System 

NESHAP national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants 

NSPS new source performance standards 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement 

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PDF portable document format 

PM particulate matter 

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RIN Regulatory Information Number 

SOP standard operating procedures 

SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunctions 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

U.S.C. United States Code 

VCS voluntary consensus standard 

WESP wet electrostatic precipitator 

Organization of this document. The 

information in this preamble is 

organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. Where can I get a copy of this document 

and other related information? 

C. Judicial Review and Administrative 

Review 

II. Background 

A. What is the statutory authority for this 

final action? 

B. How does the EPA perform the NSPS 

review? 

C. What is the source category regulated in 

this final action? 

III. What changes did we propose for the 

secondary lead smelting NSPS? 

IV. What actions are we finalizing and what 

is our rationale for such decisions? 

A. Revised NSPS for Blast, Reverberatory, 

and Pot Furnaces 

B. NSPS Subpart La Without Startup, 

Shutdown, and Malfunction Exemptions 

C. Testing and Monitoring Requirements 

D. Electronic Reporting 

E. Notification, Recordkeeping, and 

Reporting Requirements 

F. Definitions 

G. Effective Date and Compliance Dates 

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and 

Economic Impacts 

A. What are the air quality impacts? 

B. What are the secondary impacts? 

C. What are the cost impacts for regulated 

facilities? 

D. What are the economic impacts? 

E. What are the benefits? 

F. What analysis of environmental justice 

did we conduct? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 80595 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory 

Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR 

Part 51 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

The source category that is the subject 

of this final action is composed of 

secondary lead smelters regulated under 

CAA section 111, New Source 

Performance Standards (NSPS). The 

2022 North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) code for 

the source category is 331492. The 

NAICS code serves as a guide for 

readers outlining the type of entities 

that this final action is likely to affect. 

The NSPS codified in 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart L are directly applicable to 

secondary lead smelters constructed, 

reconstructed, or modified after June 11, 

1973, and on or before December 1, 

2022. The NSPS codified in 40 CFR part 

60, subpart La, are directly applicable to 

affected facilities that begin 

construction, reconstruction, or 

modification after December 1, 2022. 

Federal, state, local and tribal 

government entities would not be 

affected by this action. If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, you 

should carefully examine the 

applicability criteria found in 40 CFR 

part 60, subparts L and La, and consult 

the person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble, your state air pollution 

control agency with delegated authority 

for NSPS, or your EPA Regional Office. 

B. Where can I get a copy of this 

document and other related 

information? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this final 

action is available on the internet at 

https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sourcesair-pollution/secondary-lead-smeltersnew-source-performance-standardsnsps. Following publication in the 

Federal Register, the EPA will post the 

Federal Register version of the final rule 

and key technical documents at this 

same website. 

A redline/strikeout version of the 

rules showing the final edits being made 

to incorporate the changes to 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart L and the new text for 

40 CFR part 60, subpart La finalized in 

this action is available in the docket 

(Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2022– 

0481). Following signature by the EPA 

Administrator, the EPA also will post a 

copy of these documents to https://

www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/secondary-lead-smelters-newsource-performance-standards-nsps. 

C. Judicial Review and Administrative 

Review 

Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial 

review of this final action is available 

only by filing a petition for review in 

the United States Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit by 

January 19, 2024. Under CAA section 

307(b)(2), the requirements established 

by this final rule may not be challenged 

separately in any civil or criminal 

proceedings brought by the EPA to 

enforce the requirements. 

Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA 

further provides that ‘‘[o]nly an 

objection to a rule or procedure which 

was raised with reasonable specificity 

during the period for public comment 

(including any public hearing) may be 

raised during judicial review.’’ This 

section also provides a mechanism for 

the EPA to convene a proceeding for 

reconsideration, ‘‘[i]f the person raising 

an objection can demonstrate to the EPA 

that it was impracticable to raise such 

objection within [the period for public 

comment] or if the grounds for such 

objection arose after the period for 

public comment, (but within the time 

specified for judicial review) and if such 

objection is of central relevance to the 

outcome of the rule.’’ Any person 

seeking to make such a demonstration to 

us should submit a Petition for 

Reconsideration to the Office of the 

Administrator, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Room 3000, WJC 

West Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 

NW, Washington, DC 20460, with a 

copy to both the person(s) listed in the 

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section, and the Associate 

General Counsel for the Air and 

Radiation Law Office, Office of General 

Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 

20460. 

II. Background 

A. What is the statutory authority for 

this final action? 

The EPA’s authority for this final rule 

is CAA section 111, which governs the 

establishment of standards of 

performance for stationary sources. 

Section 111(b)(1)(A) of the CAA requires 

the EPA Administrator to list categories 

of stationary sources that in the 

Administrator’s judgment cause or 

contribute significantly to air pollution 

that may reasonably be anticipated to 

endanger public health or welfare. The 

EPA must then issue performance 

standards for new (and modified or 

reconstructed) sources in each source 

category pursuant to CAA section 

111(b)(1)(B). These standards are 

referred to as new source performance 

standards, or NSPS. The EPA has the 

authority to define the scope of the 

source categories, determine the 

pollutants for which standards should 

be developed, set the emission level of 

the standards, and distinguish among 

classes, types, and sizes within 

categories in establishing the standards. 

CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) requires the 

EPA to ‘‘at least every 8 years review 

and, if appropriate, revise’’ the NSPS. 

However, the Administrator need not 

review any such standard if the 

‘‘Administrator determines that such 

review is not appropriate in light of 

readily available information on the 

efficacy’’ of the standard. When 

conducting a review of an existing 

performance standard, the EPA has the 

discretion and authority to add emission 

limits for pollutants or emission sources 

not currently regulated for that source 

category. 

In setting or revising a performance 

standard, CAA section 111(a)(1) 

provides that performance standards are 

to reflect ‘‘the degree of emission 

limitation achievable through the 

application of the BSER which (taking 

into account the cost of achieving such 

reduction and any nonair quality health 

and environmental impact and energy 

requirements) the Administrator 

determines has been adequately 

demonstrated.’’ The term ‘‘standard of 

performance’’ in CAA section 111(a)(1) 

makes clear that the EPA is to determine 

both the BSER for the regulated sources 

in the source category and the degree of 

emission limitation achievable through 

application of the BSER. The EPA must 

then, under CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), 

promulgate standards of performance 

for new sources that reflect that level of 

stringency. CAA section 111(b)(5) 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
80596 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

1See https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/ 

91010O7P.PDF?Dockey=91010O7P.PDF. 

generally precludes the EPA from 

prescribing a particular technological 

system that must be used to comply 

with a standard of performance. Rather, 

sources can select any measure or 

combination of measures that will 

achieve the standard. CAA section 

111(h)(1) authorizes the Administrator 

to promulgate ‘‘a design, equipment, 

work practice, or operational standard, 

or combination thereof’’ if in his or her 

judgment, ‘‘it is not feasible to prescribe 

or enforce a standard of performance.’’ 

CAA section 111(h)(2) provides the 

circumstances under which prescribing 

or enforcing a standard of performance 

is ‘‘not feasible,’’ such as, when the 

pollutant cannot be emitted through a 

conveyance designed to emit or capture 

the pollutant, or when there is no 

practicable measurement methodology 

for the particular class of sources. 

Pursuant to the definition of new 

source in CAA section 111(a)(2), 

standards of performance apply to 

facilities that begin construction, 

reconstruction, or modification after the 

date of publication of the proposed 

standards in the Federal Register. 

Under CAA section 111(a)(4), 

‘‘modification’’ means any physical 

change in, or change in the method of 

operation of, a stationary source which 

increases the amount of any air 

pollutant emitted by such source or 

which results in the emission of any air 

pollutant not previously emitted. 

Changes to an existing facility that do 

not result in an increase in emissions 

are not considered modifications. Under 

the provisions in 40 CFR 60.15, 

reconstruction means the replacement 

of components of an existing facility 

such that: (1) the fixed capital cost of 

the new components exceeds 50 percent 

of the fixed capital cost that would be 

required to construct a comparable 

entirely new facility; and (2) it is 

technologically and economically 

feasible to meet the applicable 

standards. Pursuant to CAA section 

111(b)(1)(B), the standards of 

performance or revisions thereof shall 

become effective upon promulgation. 

B. How does the EPA perform the NSPS 

review? 

As noted in section II.A. of this 

preamble, CAA section 111 requires the 

EPA to, at least every 8 years, review 

and, if appropriate, revise the standards 

of performance applicable to new, 

modified, and reconstructed sources. If 

the EPA revises the standards of 

performance, they must reflect the 

degree of emission limitation achievable 

through the application of the BSER 

considering the cost of achieving such 

reduction and any nonair quality health 

and environmental impact and energy 

requirements. CAA section 111(a)(1). 

In reviewing an NSPS to determine 

whether it is ‘‘appropriate’’ to revise the 

standards of performance, the EPA 

evaluates the statutory factors, which 

may include consideration of the 

following information: 

• Expected growth for the source 

category, including how many new 

facilities, reconstructions, and 

modifications may trigger NSPS in the 

future. 

• Pollution control measures, 

including advances in control 

technologies, process operations, design 

or efficiency improvements, or other 

systems of emission reduction, that are 

‘‘adequately demonstrated’’ in the 

regulated industry. 

• Available information from the 

implementation and enforcement of 

current requirements indicating that 

emission limitations and percent 

reductions beyond those required by the 

current standards are achieved in 

practice. 

• Costs (including capital and annual 

costs) associated with implementation 

of the available pollution control 

measures. 

• The amount of emission reductions 

achievable through application of such 

pollution control measures. 

• Any non-air quality health and 

environmental impact and energy 

requirements associated with those 

control measures. 

In evaluating whether the cost of a 

particular system of emission reduction 

is reasonable, the EPA considers various 

costs associated with the particular air 

pollution control measure or a level of 

control, including capital costs and 

operating costs, and the emission 

reductions that the control measure or 

particular level of control can achieve. 

The Agency considers these costs in the 

context of the industry’s overall capital 

expenditures and revenues. The Agency 

also considers cost effectiveness 

analysis as a useful metric and a means 

of evaluating whether a given control 

achieves emission reduction at a 

reasonable cost. A cost effectiveness 

analysis allows comparisons of relative 

costs and outcomes (effects) of 2 or more 

options. In general, cost effectiveness is 

a measure of the outcomes produced by 

resources spent. In the context of air 

pollution control options, cost 

effectiveness typically refers to the 

annualized cost of implementing an air 

pollution control option divided by the 

amount of pollutant reductions realized 

annually. 

After the EPA evaluates the statutory 

factors, the EPA compares the various 

systems of emission reductions and 

determines which system is ‘‘best,’’ and 

therefore represents the BSER. The EPA 

then establishes a standard of 

performance that reflects the degree of 

emission limitation achievable through 

the implementation of the BSER. In 

doing this analysis, the EPA can 

determine whether subcategorization is 

appropriate based on classes, types, and 

sizes of sources, and may identify a 

different BSER and establish different 

performance standards for each 

subcategory. The result of the analysis 

and BSER determination leads to 

standards of performance that apply to 

facilities that begin construction, 

reconstruction, or modification after the 

date of publication of the proposed 

standards in the Federal Register. 

Because the NSPS reflect the BSER 

under conditions of proper operation 

and maintenance, in doing its review, 

the EPA also evaluates and determines 

the proper testing, monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements needed to ensure 

compliance with the emission 

standards. 

C. What is the source category regulated 

in this final action? 

The EPA first promulgated NSPS for 

the secondary lead smelting source 

category on March 8, 1974 (39 FR 9308). 

These standards of performance are 

codified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart L, 

and are applicable to sources that 

commence construction, modification, 

or reconstruction after June 11, 1973. 

These standards of performance regulate 

emissions of PM from blast and 

reverberatory furnaces and specifies 

limits for visible emissions (opacity) for 

blast and reverberatory furnaces and for 

pot (refining) furnaces. The EPA 

amended NSPS subpart L on October 6, 

1975 (40 FR 46250) to remove a 

provision providing that the failure to 

meet the NSPS emissions limits due to 

the presence of uncombined water in 

the stack gases was not considered a 

violation. In March 1979, the EPA 

reviewed the NSPS and analyzed 

possible revisions to the NSPS; 

however, the review did not result in 

any revisions to the NSPS subpart L at 

that time.1

The secondary lead smelting source 

category consists of facilities that 

produce lead and lead alloys from leadbearing scrap material. Lead is used to 

make various construction, medical, 

industrial, and consumer products such 

as batteries, glass, x-ray protection gear, 

and various fillers. The secondary lead 

smelting process consists of: (1) preVerDate Sep<11>2014 16:15 Nov 17, 2023 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR1.SGM 20NOR1

ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 80597 

processing of lead bearing materials, (2) 

melting lead metal and reducing lead 

compounds to lead metal in the 

smelting furnace, and (3) refining and 

alloying the lead to customer 

specifications. 

At secondary lead smelting facilities, 

blast and reverberatory furnaces are 

used in the smelting processes, and pot 

furnaces are used in the refining 

process. The process exhaust from blast 

and reverberatory furnaces is a source of 

PM emissions, and emissions of PM also 

occur as process fugitives at various 

points during the smelting process, such 

as during charging and tapping of 

furnaces and refining processes. 

Entrainment of dry materials in ambient 

air due to material processing, vehicle 

traffic, wind erosion from storage piles, 

and other activities can also be a source 

of PM emissions. 

Currently, there are 11 secondary lead 

smelting facilities in the United States 

and each facility operates furnaces that 

are subject to NSPS subpart L, which 

specifies that owners or operators of 

affected facilities must limit PM 

emissions from blast and reverberatory 

furnaces to not more than 50 milligrams 

per dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm) 

or 0.022 grains per dry standard cubic 

feet (gr/dscf). Subpart L also specifies 

that visible emissions must not exceed 

20 percent opacity from blast or 

reverberatory furnaces and 10 percent 

opacity from pot furnaces. Secondary 

lead smelting facilities use a variety of 

control devices (e.g., baghouses, gas 

scrubbers), often in combination, to 

comply with the PM emissions and 

opacity limits of the NSPS. 

The EPA proposed the current review 

and revisions of the secondary lead 

smelting source category NSPS subpart 

L on December 1, 2022 (87 FR 73708). 

We received four comment letters, 

including one from the industry trade 

association (the Association of Battery 

Recyclers, or ABR) and three from other 

stakeholders, during the comment 

period. Summaries of the more 

significant comments we timely 

received regarding the proposed rule 

and our responses are provided in this 

preamble. A summary of all other public 

comments on the proposal and the 

EPA’s responses to those comments is 

available in Summary of Public 

Comments and Responses on Proposed 

Rule: New Source Performance 

Standards for Secondary Lead Smelting 

(40 CFR part 60, subparts L and La) Best 

System of Emission Reduction Review, 

Final Amendments, Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2022–0481. In this action, the 

EPA is finalizing decisions and 

revisions pursuant to CAA section 

111(b)(1)(B) review for the secondary 

lead smelting NSPS subpart L after our 

considerations of all the comments 

received. 

III. What changes did we propose for 

the secondary lead smelting NSPS? 

On December 1, 2022, the EPA 

proposed revisions to the NSPS for 

secondary lead smelters pursuant to 

CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) review of 

NSPS subpart L. In that action, the EPA 

proposed to establish a new subpart (40 

CFR part 60, subpart La) applicable to 

affected sources that begin construction, 

reconstruction, or modification after 

December 1, 2022. The EPA proposed in 

the NSPS subpart La, revised standards 

for PM emissions and opacity for blast 

furnaces, reverberatory furnaces, and 

process fugitive emissions sources that 

apply at all times, including periods of 

SSM. The EPA proposed initial and 

periodic PM and opacity performance 

testing, recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements. The EPA also proposed to 

revise the definitions for blast and 

reverberatory furnaces and added a new 

definition for pot furnaces. 

The EPA also proposed to amend 

NSPS subpart L to clarify that NSPS 

subpart L applies to affected sources 

that commenced construction, 

reconstruction, or modification after 

June 11, 1973, and on or before 

December 1, 2022, and to update the 

NSPS furnace definitions, performance 

testing schedule, and monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements to be more consistent with 

the NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart 

X). The EPA also proposed the IBR of 

an alternative method for determining 

opacity and the requirement for the 

submission of electronic performance 

test reports. 

IV. What actions are we finalizing and 

what is our rationale for such 

decisions? 

The EPA is finalizing revisions to the 

NSPS for secondary lead smelters 

pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) 

review. The EPA is promulgating the 

NSPS revisions in a new subpart, 40 

CFR part 60, subpart La. The revised 

NSPS subpart is applicable to affected 

sources constructed, modified, or 

reconstructed after December 1, 2022. 

This action also finalizes standards of 

performance in NSPS subpart La for PM 

emission and opacity that apply at all 

times including during periods of SSM 

and other proposed changes such as 

electronic reporting. Additionally, this 

action finalizes proposed revisions to 

the testing, monitoring, notification, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements, which are the same for 

both NSPS subparts L and La, and 

finalizes a definition for ‘‘process 

fugitive emissions source’’ in NSPS 

subpart La based on consideration of 

public comments. 

A. Revised NSPS for Blast, 

Reverberatory, and Pot Furnaces 

1. Proposed BSER for PM Emissions and 

Opacity 

Based on the EPA’s permit review and 

assessment of control costs and other 

CAA section 111 statutory 

considerations, the EPA proposed to 

identify for NSPS subpart La that the 

BSER for PM emissions and opacity 

from new, modified, or reconstructed 

blast furnaces is an afterburner followed 

by efficient particulate controls (e.g., 

fabric filter that may be installed in 

series with a high efficiency particulate 

air (HEPA) filter and/or a venturi 

scrubber). For new, modified, or 

reconstructed reverberatory and pot 

furnaces, the EPA proposed that the 

BSER for PM emissions and opacity is 

efficient particulate controls (e.g., fabric 

filter that may be installed in series with 

a HEPA filter, venturi scrubber and/or a 

wet electrostatic precipitator (WESP)). 

Based on the available PM emissions 

and opacity data, the EPA proposed in 

NSPS subpart La that the standard of 

performance for blast and reverberatory 

furnaces that reflects the application of 

BSER is an emission limit of 10 mg PM/ 

dscm. For pot furnaces, the EPA 

proposed in NSPS subpart La that the 

standard of performance that reflects the 

application of BSER is a PM emissions 

limit of 3 mg/dscm. The EPA also 

proposed that the standard of 

performance for opacity from blast, 

reverberatory, and pot furnaces 

emissions is 0 percent. 

2. How the Final Revisions to BSER and 

the PM Emissions and Opacity 

Standards Differ From the Proposed 

Revisions 

After considering the comments 

regarding the EPA’s proposed BSER 

determinations for NSPS subpart La and 

the proposed PM emissions and opacity 

standards, the EPA is finalizing the 

BSER determinations and the PM 

standards for blast and reverberatory 

furnaces for NSPS subpart La, as 

proposed. However, after considering 

the comments and additional opacity 

data provided by one commenter, the 

EPA is finalizing the opacity limits for 

blast and reverberatory furnace in the 

final NSPS subpart La at 5 percent, 

rather than the proposed opacity 

standard of 0 percent. Also, the EPA is 

revising the PM limit for pot furnaces to 

address comments associated with the 

interaction of the proposed limit for pot 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
80598 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

furnaces with the NESHAP subpart X 

requirements. In the final NSPS subpart 

La (40 CFR 60.122a(a)), the EPA is 

promulgating a definition for ‘‘process 

fugitives emission source’’ (see the 

discussion in section IV.F. of this 

preamble) and finalizing an emissions 

limit for PM of 4.9 mg/dscm and an 

opacity limit of 5 percent from process 

fugitive emissions sources that includes 

emissions from pot furnaces, as well as 

other combined process fugitive 

emissions (e.g., emissions from furnace 

charging and tapping and casting). 

3. BSER and PM Emissions and Opacity 

Standards Comments and Responses 

a. BSER Determination 

Comment: One commenter disagreed 

with the EPA’s determination in the 

proposal preamble (87 FR 73715) that 

the BSER for PM emissions and opacity 

from new, modified, or reconstructed 

blast furnaces is an afterburner followed 

by efficient PM controls (e.g., fabric 

filter installed in series with a highefficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter 

and/or a venturi scrubber). The 

commenter noted that secondary lead 

smelting facilities use afterburners 

primarily to reduce emissions of carbon 

monoxide and unburned hydrocarbons 

from certain types of furnaces and 

configurations (e.g., blast furnaces, 

collocated reverberatory furnaces) and 

that afterburners have little if any role 

in reducing emissions of PM. 

Response: The EPA disagrees with the 

commenter’s assertion that BSER for PM 

emissions and opacity from new, 

modified, or reconstructed blast 

furnaces should not include an 

afterburner. The afterburner helps to 

prevent fouling of the fabric filter by 

organics and moisture in the furnace 

exhaust, which results in better PM 

control. This determination is consistent 

with the BSER discussed in previous 

Secondary Lead Smelting NSPS review 

documents. For example, Volume 1 of 

the NSPS background document (June 

1973, Air Pollution Technical Data 

(APTD)-1352a) states that the blast 

furnace afterburner is used upstream of 

the baghouse to ‘‘incinerate oily and 

sticky materials to avoid binding the 

fabric.’’ Additionally, the March 1979 

NSPS review document (EPA–450/3– 

79–015) states that, ‘‘As previously 

noted, with blast furnaces an afterburner 

is employed to ensure complete 

combustion of such material [sparks and 

other burning material in furnace gas] 

before it enters the baghouse.’’ The 

commenter did not provide any 

additional information to contradict this 

long-standing analysis of the benefits of 

using in blast furnaces an afterburner to 

further reduce PM emissions. 

b. Opacity Emission Limits for NSPS 

Subpart La 

Comment: One commenter contended 

that the EPA based the proposed 

standard of 0 percent opacity limit for 

blast, reverberatory, and pot furnaces on 

insufficient information and limited 

data. The commenter also said that the 

EPA did not evaluate opacity 

measurements across the affected 

sources and under different operating 

conditions (particularly SSM periods). 

In response to the EPA’s request in 

the proposal for comments regarding the 

available opacity data for blast, 

reverberatory, and pot furnaces, the 

commenter provided a subset of opacity 

data measured in a common stack 

utilizing a continuous opacity monitor 

system (COMS) at the outlet of the 

baghouses before the scrubber (the 

commenter asserted a claim of CBI over 

the baghouse data). The commenter 

stated that the baghouse data 

demonstrate the presence of non-zero 

opacities during normal operations and 

contradict the EPA’s proposed opacity 

limitation of 0 percent. 

The commenter stated that the 

inherent subjectivity in the 

measurement of opacity precludes the 

EPA from establishing an absolute 0 

percent opacity emissions standard. The 

commenter noted that the subjectivity of 

opacity measurements is acknowledged 

in the certification requirements for 

both EPA Method 9 and ASTM D7520– 

16 (i.e., >15 percent opacity at any 

single plume reading or a >7.5 percent 

opacity average error in each plume 

category). The commenter added that 

ASTM D7520–16 references a 

repeatability (precision) study at 0 

percent opacity of ±3 percent opacity 

(i.e., at 0 percent opacity, ASTM D7520– 

16 will read between 0 percent opacity 

to 3 percent opacity 95 percent of the 

time), which could result in an 

exceedance of the 0 percent opacity 

standard. The commenter also noted 

that the proposed methodologies to 

determine opacity or visible emissions 

can be impacted by limitations in 

contrasting backgrounds and by the 

presence of wet plumes, which vary 

from source to source. 

To account for the subjectivity and 

the margin of error associated with the 

proposed compliance test methods 

presented above, the commenter stated 

that the EPA should revise the proposed 

opacity limit to 5 percent. 

Response: The EPA acknowledges 

that, on occasion during process 

operations and particularly during 

startup and shutdown events, brief 

periods of visible emissions from these 

sources are possible. However, since 

these sources are located in negative 

pressure locations, these periods of 

visible emissions should not typically 

occur. As such, to account for the 

remote possibility of these periods of 

visible emissions, limited data 

availability, and the subjectivity and 

margin of error of the visible emissions 

test methods, we are finalizing a visible 

emission standard of no greater than 5 

percent over a single 6-minute averaging 

period. The 5 percent value ‘‘threshold’’ 

is the lowest visible emission increment 

reading achievable by EPA Method 9 

that is greater than 0 percent, and the 6- 

minute averaging period represents the 

minimum number of visible emissions 

observations prescribed by EPA Method 

9 to calculate a valid visible emissions 

average (i.e., a minimum of 24 visible 

emissions observations shall be made at 

15-second intervals). This opacity 

standard and averaging period accounts 

for brief periods of visible emissions 

while still maintaining stringency with 

the expected absence of emissions in a 

negative pressure environment. 

To verify this, a 6-minute EPA 

Method 22 visible emissions check 

should occur at a minimum of once per 

calendar day during normal operations, 

as well as during each SSM event. If any 

visible emissions are observed for any 

period of time (i.e., >0 seconds), a 30- 

minute EPA Method 9 visible emissions 

test must be conducted as soon as 

practicable. As an alternative, a 30- 

minute EPA Method 9 visible emissions 

test can be performed at a minimum of 

once per calendar day during normal 

operations, as well as during each SSM 

event without having to perform the 

EPA Method 22 visible emissions check. 

If any rolling 6-minute averaging period 

from the 30-minute visible emissions 

test is greater than 5 percent, corrective 

action must be initiated within 1 hour 

of detecting visible emissions above the 

applicable limit. After the corrective 

action is completed, an additional 30- 

minute visible emissions test must be 

performed. After the corrective action is 

completed, if any rolling 6-minute 

averaging period from the follow-up 30- 

minute visible emissions test is greater 

than 5 percent, the source is deemed out 

of compliance with the prescribed 

opacity standard. 

Comment: One commenter noted an 

apparent typographical error in the 

proposed NSPS subpart La (40 CFR 

60.122a) and suggested that the EPA 

change the text from ‘‘Exhibit 0 percent 

opacity or greater’’ to ‘‘Exhibit opacity 

greater than’’ the limit. 

Response: The EPA has revised the 

text in NSPS subpart La 40 CFR 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 80599 

60.122a(a)(2) and 60.122a(b)(2) to 

address the typographical error. 

c. PM Emissions Limit for Pot Furnaces 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the proposed rule’s treatment of ‘‘pot 

furnaces,’’ including the establishment 

of PM standards for new pot furnaces, 

is misaligned with the functioning of 

pot furnaces at secondary lead smelters 

and with their treatment under other 

regulatory provisions, including 

NESHAP subpart X. The commenter 

said that NESHAP subpart X regulates 

pot furnace emissions as process 

fugitives, which are typically combined 

with emissions from other sources for 

ducting to controls, and that isolating 

pot furnace emissions for the purpose of 

performance testing may not be 

practical. The commenter said that the 

EPA should remove the proposed PM 

standard for pot furnaces. 

The commenter stated that NESHAP 

subpart X (40 CFR 63.542) considers pot 

furnaces to be a process fugitive 

emissions source, rather than a process 

emissions source. The commenter noted 

that facilities may mix emissions from 

pot furnaces with process emissions 

from the smelting furnaces which makes 

it more difficult to segregate pot furnace 

emissions for compliance determination 

purposes. If the EPA does establish 

NSPS subpart La emission standards for 

new pot furnaces at secondary lead 

smelters, the commenter asserted that 

the EPA should clarify that commingled 

emissions from smelting furnaces and 

pot furnaces are subject to the proposed 

emission standards in 40 CFR 

60.122a(a). 

The commenter contended that the 

data the EPA used to establish the 

proposed PM emissions limit for pot 

furnaces are insufficient because the 

data include contributions from 

emission sources other than pot 

furnaces (e.g., casting emissions). 

The commenter also stated that the 

EPA should confirm that smaller 

refining kettles used for research and 

development (R&D) are excluded from 

the proposed definition of pot furnaces. 

For example, the EPA could exclude 

such kettles by establishing a size limit 

(e.g., smaller than 5 tons of molten 

metal at maximum capacity) and a usage 

limit (operated fewer than 4000 hours 

per year). The commenter noted that the 

R&D refining kettles are a fraction of the 

size of normal production refining 

kettles (e.g., 1 ton v. 100 tons) and are, 

therefore, insignificant emission sources 

at smelters. 

Response: The EPA disagrees with 

commenter’s statement that the final 

rule should not include a PM standard 

for pot furnaces. As noted in sections 

IV.A.1. and 2. of this preamble, the EPA 

has determined that the final BSER for 

PM emissions and opacity from new, 

modified, or reconstructed pot furnaces 

is efficient particulate controls, and the 

commenter does not dispute that PM 

emissions from pot furnaces can be 

reduced by application of these 

controls. Consequently, the EPA must 

establish a PM emissions limit that 

reflects BSER. However, the EPA 

acknowledges that isolating pot furnace 

emissions for NSPS compliance testing 

may not be feasible for all secondary 

lead smelting facilities. The EPA also 

acknowledges that the limited data the 

EPA used to establish the proposed PM 

emissions limit for pot furnaces include 

contributions from emission sources 

other than pot furnaces (i.e., data from 

5 of 6 test reports used to calculate the 

proposed pot furnace limit included 

contributions from casting fugitives). 

To address the commenter’s concern 

related to isolating emissions for 

compliance testing and the limited data 

set, the EPA conducted a further 

evaluation of the available test data to 

identify data values that included 

contributions from pot furnaces 

combined with other process fugitive 

sources (e.g., emissions from furnace 

charging and tapping and casting). The 

EPA used this data set of comingled pot 

furnace emissions, which consists of 45 

test runs from 3 facilities (Clarios, South 

Carolina; Gopher Resource, Florida; and 

Gopher Resource, Minnesota), to derive 

a PM emissions limit for pot furnace 

emissions combined with emissions 

from other process fugitives. Based on 

this updated analysis, in the final NSPS 

subpart La (40 CFR 60.122a(a)), the EPA 

is promulgating a process fugitive 

source emissions limit for PM of 4.9 mg/ 

dscm from the process emissions 

control devices. This analysis can be 

found in the Particulate Matter 

Emissions Test Data Memorandum for 

Process Fugitive Sources as Secondary 

Lead Smelting Facilities located in the 

docket for this rulemaking. This 

approach of regulating pot furnace 

emissions as a process fugitive source is 

consistent with the approach used 

under NESHAP subpart X, which 

requires that new or reconstructed 

sources must capture all process fugitive 

emissions (including pot furnace 

emissions) with hoods or negative 

pressure enclosures and route those 

emissions to a control device. 

Regarding the commenter’s assertion 

that the EPA should confirm that 

smaller refining kettles used for R&D are 

excluded from the proposed definition 

of pot furnaces, the commentor did not 

provide any data demonstrating that 

R&D kettles cannot meet the proposed 

requirement. Additionally, the EPA is 

not finalizing the proposed definition 

for pot furnaces and is finalizing a 

process fugitive emissions limit. 

Therefore, the EPA has no basis to 

provide an exception to the emissions 

limits specified in NSPS subpart La at 

this time. However, the EPA may revisit 

this issue under the NESHAP subpart X 

review. 

B. NSPS Subpart La Without Startup, 

Shutdown, and Malfunction Exemptions 

Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, 

551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the EPA 

has established standards in NSPS 

subpart La that apply at all times. We 

are finalizing in NSPS subpart La 

specific requirements at 40 CFR 

60.122a(c) that override the general 

provisions for SSM requirements. In 

finalizing the standards in NSPS subpart 

La, the EPA has taken into account 

startup and shutdown periods and, for 

the reasons explained in this section of 

the preamble, has not finalized alternate 

standards for those periods. 

Periods of startup, normal operations, 

and shutdown are all predictable and 

routine aspects of a source’s operations. 

Malfunctions, in contrast, are neither 

predictable nor routine. Instead, they 

are, by definition, sudden, infrequent, 

and not reasonably preventable failures 

of emissions control, process, or 

monitoring equipment (40 CFR 60.2). 

The EPA interprets CAA section 111 as 

not requiring emissions that occur 

during periods of malfunction to be 

factored into development of CAA 

section 111 standards. Nothing in CAA 

section 111 or in case law requires that 

the EPA consider malfunctions when 

determining what standards of 

performance reflect the degree of 

emission limitation achievable through 

‘‘the application of the best system of 

emission reduction’’ that the EPA 

determines is adequately demonstrated. 

While the EPA accounts for variability 

in setting emissions standards, nothing 

in CAA section 111 requires the Agency 

to consider malfunctions as part of that 

analysis. The EPA is not required to 

treat a malfunction in the same manner 

as the type of variation in performance 

that occurs during routine operations of 

a source. A malfunction is a failure of 

the source to perform in a ‘‘normal or 

usual manner’’ and no statutory 

language compels the EPA to consider 

such events in setting CAA section 111 

standards of performance. The EPA’s 

approach to malfunctions in the 

analogous circumstances (setting 

‘‘achievable’’ standards under CAA 

section 112) has been upheld as 

reasonable by the D.C. Circuit in U.S. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
80600 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606– 

610 (2016). 

1. Proposed SSM Provisions 

The EPA proposed in NSPS subpart 

La that the PM emissions and opacity 

limits for blast, reverberatory, and pot 

furnaces apply at all times, including 

periods of SSM. The proposed NSPS 

subpart La included specific 

requirements at 40 CFR 60.122a(c) that 

would override the general provisions 

for SSM requirements. 

2. How the Final Revisions to the SSM 

Provisions Differ From the Proposed 

Revisions 

After considering the comment on the 

proposed SSM provisions, the EPA is 

finalizing in NSPS subpart La that the 

PM emissions and opacity limits for 

blast, reverberatory, and pot furnaces 

apply at all times, including periods of 

SSM, and is finalizing the SSM 

provision in 40 CFR 60.122a(c), as 

proposed. 

3. SSM Provision Comment and 

Response 

Comment: One commenter asserted 

that the EPA should not remove from 

NSPS subpart La the exception in the 

NSPS general provisions (40 CFR 

60.8(c)) which states that emissions 

during SSM periods that exceed the 

applicable NSPS limit are not 

considered to be a violation of the 

applicable emission limit. The 

commenter noted that multiple rulings 

by the D.C. Circuit (e.g., Portland 

Cement Ass’n v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 

375, 398 (D.C. Cir. 1973); Essex Chem. 

Corp. v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 427, 432 

(D.C. Cir. 1973); and National Lime 

Ass’n v. EPA, 627 F.2d 416, 431 n.46 

(D.C. Cir. 1980)) have affirmed the 

EPA’s historic approach of not requiring 

affected sources to meet NSPS emission 

limits during SSM events. The 

commenter stated that it would be 

arbitrary and capricious for the EPA to 

interpret Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 

1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), as preventing the 

EPA from exercising discretion in 

establishing an SSM exception in NSPS 

subpart La or as making an SSM 

exception inappropriate in NSPS 

subpart La on the current record. 

Response: As discussed in more detail 

in the proposal, the EPA has determined 

that the reasoning in the court’s 

decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 

1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated the 

SSM exemption in CAA section 112, 

applies equally to CAA section 111. 

Therefore, we disagree with the 

commenter on the applicability of this 

decision to CAA section 111. While the 

EPA recognizes the differences between 

the NESHAP and NSPS programs, the 

court in Sierra Club held that under 

section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions 

standards or limitations must be 

continuous in nature, and the definition 

of emission or standard in CAA section 

302(k) and the requirement for 

continuous standards applies to both 

NESHAP and NSPS. 

C. Testing and Monitoring Requirements 

1. Proposed Testing and Monitoring 

Provisions 

The EPA proposed requiring that 

facilities subject to 40 CFR part 60, 

subparts L and La conduct periodic PM 

testing of blast, reverberatory, and pot 

furnace emissions. The EPA also 

proposed under 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

La periodic testing of opacity from blast, 

reverberatory, and pot furnace 

emissions. The proposed amendments 

would allow facilities to request less 

frequent periodic PM testing, reduced 

from every 12 months to every 24 

months, if the previous periodic 

compliance test demonstrates that PM 

emissions are 50 percent or less of the 

final emissions limit (e.g., PM emissions 

from blast and reverberatory furnaces of 

25 mg/dscm or less for facilities subject 

to 40 CFR part 60, subpart L). 

To reduce the testing burden on 

facilities, the EPA also proposed 

allowing facilities to determine the PM 

emissions by either EPA Method 12 

(Determination of Inorganic Lead 

Emissions from Stationary Sources) or 

EPA Method 29 (Determination of 

Metals Emissions from Stationary 

Sources). For determining opacity under 

NSPS subpart L, the EPA proposed 

allowing the use of ASTM, International 

(ASTM) D7520–16 (Standard Test 

Method for Determining the Opacity of 

a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient 

Atmosphere) as an alternative to EPA 

Method 9. For NSPS subpart La, the 

EPA proposed allowing the use of EPA 

Method 22 (Visual Determination of 

Fugitive Emissions from Material 

Sources and Smoke Emissions from 

Flares) if there are zero visible 

emissions as an alternative to EPA 

Method 9 or the ASTM D7520–16 

method. 

The EPA also proposed adding 40 

CFR 60.124 and 40 CFR 60.124a 

(Monitoring requirements) to NSPS 

subparts L and La, respectively, to 

include some of the monitoring 

requirements specified in 40 CFR 

63.548(a) through (i) (Monitoring 

requirements) of the NESHAP (40 CFR 

part 63, subpart X), including 

development of a standard operating 

procedures (SOP) manual for control 

devices used to reduce PM and opacity 

emissions. 

2. How the Final Revisions to the 

Testing and Monitoring Provisions 

Differ From the Proposed Revisions 

After considering the comments, the 

EPA is finalizing the testing and 

monitoring provisions, as proposed. In 

response to public comment regarding 

the appropriate level of the opacity 

standard, the EPA revised the proposed 

opacity standard from 0 percent to 5 

percent (see the discussion in section 

IV.A. of this preamble). Although EPA 

Method 22 is used only to determine the 

absence of visual emissions (i.e., zero 

percent opacity), rather than to 

determine non-zero readings (e.g., 5 

percent opacity), the EPA is retaining 

the use of EPA Method 22 as an 

alternative method to potentially reduce 

the testing burden on facilities. For 

example, a facility could use EPA 

Method 22 to demonstrate compliance 

with the final opacity limit of 5 percent 

by determining no visible emissions. 

However, if visible emissions are 

detected, the facility would need to 

proceed to use EPA Method 9 to confirm 

opacity is no more than 5 percent. 

3. Testing and Monitoring Comments 

and Responses 

Comment: One commenter contended 

that periodic PM testing is unnecessary 

and inappropriate, and would not 

discover any actionable information that 

would not be discovered through the 

regular performance testing for 

particulate lead required by NESHAP 

subpart X. 

Response: The EPA disagrees with the 

commenter. The target pollutant of the 

periodic testing under NESHAP subpart 

X is lead, while the target pollutant for 

the NSPS is PM. The EPA concludes 

that it is appropriate to require periodic 

testing for PM to confirm affected 

facilities continue to comply with the 

PM limits. Codifying the testing 

requirements in the NSPS provides for 

periodic, direct assessments regarding 

facility compliance status with the PM 

limits in NSPS subparts L and La. 

Comment: One commenter 

acknowledged that allowing facilities to 

conduct performance tests for NESHAP 

subpart X and NSPS subparts L and La, 

as applicable, through collection of a 

single sample will appropriately 

facilitate effective compliance. The 

commenter stated that, to assist in the 

clarity of implementing the proposed 

rule, the EPA should revise proposed 40 

CFR 60.123 and 60.123a to clarify that 

smelters are to employ section 16.1 of 

EPA Method 12 or the specifications in 

EPA Method 29, as stated in section 1.2 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 80601 

of EPA Method 29, and detailed 

throughout EPA Method 29. 

Response: The EPA added the test 

method sections cited by the commenter 

to the final rules. 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

proposed NSPS subparts L and La (at 40 

CFR 60.123(b)(2) and 60.123a(b)(2)) 

allow for facilities to request from the 

EPA Administrator an extension (up to 

24 months) for conducting the periodic 

performance tests for facilities where 

the previous compliance tests measured 

PM emissions are 50 percent or less of 

the emissions limit (e.g., for NSPS 

subpart L, 25 mg/dscm or less). The 

commenter asserted that, in practice, it 

is difficult for well-controlled smelters 

to obtain a timely decision from the EPA 

regarding the facility’s request, which is 

essentially tantamount to an unjustified 

denial of the extension request. The 

commenter stated that the EPA should 

provide the testing extension upon 

receipt of the facility’s request by the 

appropriate EPA regional office, rather 

than the facility having to wait for 

Administrator approval. 

Response: The EPA disagrees with the 

commenter. Providing the performance 

testing extension based solely on the 

receipt of the facility’s request would 

not be appropriate because it would not 

provide any opportunity for the EPA or 

delegated authority to verify the 

facility’s assertion by reviewing the 

request and supporting documentation 

(e.g., test report) before granting the 

testing extension. However, the EPA 

recognizes it is reasonable for a facility 

to expect to get a response as to whether 

the 24-month period is approved within 

a reasonable timeframe before their next 

compliance test. Therefore, the EPA has 

determined that it is appropriate to 

finalize a provision that would preserve 

the opportunity to review incoming 

requests, while encouraging the EPA or 

delegated authority to act within a 

reasonable timeframe so that facilities 

have adequate notice as to when the 

next compliance test will be required. 

Accordingly, the EPA is finalizing a 

provision that provides that the 

extension request will be deemed 

automatically approved under the 

following specified circumstances: (1) a 

facility completes a performance test 

that is 50 percent or lower than the 

applicable emissions limit, (2) the 

facility submits a request for the 

extension of 24 months well before their 

next required compliance test (i.e., no 

more than 4 months after the subject 

compliance test that was 50 percent or 

lower than the limit), and (3) the EPA 

does not provide a response to such 

request within 6 months of receipt of 

such request. The EPA has determined 

that this provision will provide a 

balanced approach to the competing 

interests of all involved parties. 

D. Electronic Reporting 

The EPA is finalizing a requirement 

that owners and operators of secondary 

lead smelters subject to the NSPS 

subparts L and La submit the results of 

the initial and periodic performance 

tests electronically through the EPA’s 

Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the 

Compliance and Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface (CEDRI). The EPA 

did not receive any public comments 

regarding the proposed requirements for 

electronic reporting. 

E. Notification, Recordkeeping, and 

Reporting Requirements 

1. Proposed Notification, 

Recordkeeping, and Reporting 

Provisions 

The EPA proposed to add the 

notification, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements specified in the 

proposed 40 CFR 60.125 and 40 CFR 

60.125a (Notification, recordkeeping, 

and reporting requirements) to NSPS 

subparts L and La, respectively. The 

proposed requirements clarified that 

facilities must comply with the 

notification and recordkeeping 

requirements specified in 40 CFR 60.7 

and the reporting requirements 

specified in 40 CFR 60.19. The proposed 

requirements in NSPS subparts L and La 

included the recordkeeping 

requirements from NESHAP subpart X 

specified in 40 CFR 63.550(b); (c)(1) 

through (c)(4); (c)(11) through (c)(12); 

(e)(4) through (e)(7); and (e)(13). 

2. How the Final Revisions to the 

Notification, Recordkeeping and 

Reporting Provisions Differ From the 

Proposed Revisions 

After considering the comments, the 

EPA is finalizing the notification, 

recordkeeping and reporting provisions, 

as proposed, with the exception of the 

editorial changes made to the text of 40 

CFR 60.125(a) and 60.125a(a); 40 CFR 

60.124(c) and 60.124a(c); and 40 CFR 

60.124(f)(4) and 60.124a(f)(4), as 

discussed below in section IV.E.3. of 

this preamble. 

3. Notification, Recordkeeping, and 

Reporting Comments and Responses 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the EPA should clarify as to the 

proposed revisions to NSPS subpart L 

that certain aspects of the NSPS General 

Provisions 40 CFR 60.7 and 60.19 will 

not apply because they concern 

regulatory provisions that are absent 

from NSPS subpart L (e.g., 40 CFR 

60.7(a)(7) concerns continuous opacity 

monitoring systems, which 

appropriately are not required under 

proposed NSPS subpart L). 

Response: The EPA revised the text of 

40 CFR 60.125(a) and 60.125a(a) as set 

forth in the amendatory text portion of 

this final rule to address the 

clarification suggested by the 

commenter. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the EPA should revise the proposed 

NSPS subparts L and La (40 CFR 

60.124(c) and 60.124a(c)) to replace the 

phrase ‘‘PM and opacity emissions 

control devices’’ with the phrase 

‘‘baghouses (fabric filters or cartridge 

collectors)’’ to improve the consistency 

between the underlying requirement 

proposed in 40 CFR 60.124(b) and 

60.124a(b), and the submission 

provisions proposed in 40 CFR 

60.124(c) and 60.124a(c). 

Response: The EPA agrees with the 

editorial change suggested by the 

commenter. Therefore, the final NSPS 

subparts L and La (40 CFR 60.124(c) and 

60.124a(c)) replace the phrase ‘‘PM and 

opacity emissions control devices’’ with 

the phrase ‘‘baghouses (fabric filters or 

cartridge collectors).’’ 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that the EPA provide a mechanism by 

which a secondary lead smelting facility 

could avoid submission of a redundant 

SOP manual in response to the 

proposed requirements in 40 CFR 

60.124 and 60.124a, given the 

similarities between those provisions 

and the SOP required by NESHAP 

subpart X (40 CFR 63.548). 

Response: The EPA disagrees with the 

commenter that an additional 

mechanism is needed that would allow 

secondary lead smelting facilities to 

avoid submission of redundant SOP 

manuals in response to the proposed 

requirements in 40 CFR 60.124 and 

60.124a. Proposed 40 CFR 60.124(l) and 

60.124a(l) state: ‘‘If an affected source is 

subject to the monitoring requirements 

specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart X 

(National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants from 

Secondary Lead Smelting) and those 

requirements are as stringent or more 

stringent than the monitoring 

requirements specified in paragraphs (a) 

through (j) of this section, compliance 

with the monitoring requirements 

specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart X 

also demonstrates compliance with the 

monitoring requirements specified in 

paragraphs (a) through (k) of this 

section.’’ The EPA believes that this 

specification in NSPS subparts L and La 

already addresses the concern raised by 

the commenter. 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

proposed NSPS subparts L and La (40 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
80602 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

CFR 60.124(f)(4) and 60.124a(f)(4)) refer 

to the document ‘‘Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards (OAQPS) Fabric 

Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance’’ 

(EPA–454/R–98–015; September 1997). 

The commenter stated that the EPA 

guidance document is 26 years old and 

may be inconsistent with current 

guidance provided by manufacturers of 

bag leak detection systems. The 

commenter requested that the EPA 

revise proposed NSPS subparts L and La 

(40 CFR 60.124(f)(4) and 60.124a(f)(4)) 

to clarify that a smelter may install and 

operate the bag leak detection system in 

a manner consistent with the 

manufacturer’s written specifications 

and recommendations if there is any 

conflict between the manufacturer’s 

instructions and the OAQPS guidance. 

Response: The EPA agrees with the 

clarification suggested by the 

commenter. Therefore, the final text of 

40 CFR 60.124(f)(4) and 60.124a(f)(4) as 

set forth in the amendatory text portion 

of this final rule. 

Comment: One commenter contended 

that the proposed requirements in NSPS 

subparts L and La (40 CFR 60.124(k), 

60.124a(k), 60.125(c)(10), and 

60.125a(c)(10)) for facilities to establish 

and record parametric monitoring 

values for each control device used to 

comply with the PM and opacity 

emission standards are not consistent 

with the requirements of NESHAP 

subpart X (40 CFR 63.550(a)), which 

only requires parametric monitoring and 

recordkeeping for scrubbers. The 

commenter stated that the proposed 

requirements in NSPS subparts L and La 

(40 CFR 60.124(k) and 60.124a(k)) for 

secondary lead smelting facilities to 

establish, during the initial or periodic 

performance test, the value or range of 

values of the monitoring parameter(s) 

for each control device used to comply 

with the PM and opacity emission 

standards was overly vague and 

potentially would require the 

establishment of monitoring parameters 

for pollution control devices (e.g., 

WESPs) that are employed, but are not 

part of BSER, or afterburners that are 

employed, but have little or no role in 

PM control. The commenter added that 

the proposed NSPS subparts L and La 

include monitoring and recordkeeping 

provisions that provide sufficient 

criteria for the proper operation of 

applicable control devices (the 

commenter provided several citations to 

the proposed rules). The commenter 

stated that the EPA should revise the 

proposed language to specify that a 

secondary lead smelting facility is not 

required to establish and record 

parametric monitoring values for PM 

control devices (other than scrubbers) if 

the facility demonstrates compliance 

with NSPS subparts L and/or La (40 

CFR 60.124 and/or 60.124a) by 

complying with the monitoring 

provisions of NESHAP subpart X. 

Response: Although the EPA strives to 

improve the consistency between NSPS 

subparts L and La and NESHAP subpart 

X, where possible, the EPA’s decisionmaking regarding the requirements for 

the NSPS must be driven by the 

requirements of CAA section 111 and 

the regulatory provisions necessary to 

implement standards of performance 

promulgated pursuant to that authority. 

We have determined that parametric 

monitoring of control devices is 

necessary for demonstrating ongoing 

compliance with the PM and opacity 

emission standards between the 

demonstrations provided by the 

periodic performance tests. We also 

disagree with the commenter that the 

text in proposed NSPS subparts L and 

La (40 CFR 60.124(k) and 60.124a(k)) is 

overly vague. The rules specify 

establishment of monitoring parameter 

values ‘‘for each control device used to 

comply with the PM and opacity 

emission standards’’ of the NSPS. 

Regarding the commenter’s contention 

that the proposed text could potentially 

require the establishment of monitoring 

parameters for control devices (e.g., 

WESP) and afterburners, this is 

consistent with the EPA’s intent. The 

EPA determined that BSER for PM 

emissions and opacity from new, 

modified, or reconstructed blast 

furnaces is an afterburner followed by 

efficient PM controls, which would 

include controls such as a WESP. 

Comment: One commenter said that 

the phrase ‘‘and those requirements are 

as stringent or more stringent than the 

monitoring requirements specified in 

paragraphs (a) through (j) of this 

section’’ in proposed NSPS subparts L 

and La (40 CFR 60.124(l) and 60.124a(l)) 

introduces regulatory confusion as to 

whether compliance with the 

monitoring provisions of NESHAP 

subpart X also demonstrates compliance 

with the proposed monitoring 

requirements of NSPS subparts L and 

La. The commenter asserted that the 

EPA should either eliminate the phrase 

from the regulatory text or, at a 

minimum, state in the preamble to the 

final NSPS rulemaking that the current 

monitoring provisions of NESHAP 

subpart X are as stringent or more 

stringent than the monitoring 

requirements specified in the proposed 

NSPS. 

Response: The EPA believes that the 

current monitoring provisions of 

NESHAP subpart X are at least as 

stringent as the monitoring 

requirements specified in the final 

NSPS subparts L and La. Nonetheless, 

the EPA continues to find it appropriate 

to finalize the proposed language at 40 

CFR 60.124(l) and 60.124a(l) with 

respect to the NESHAP subpart X 

monitoring requirements. NESHAP 

undergo periodic reviews pursuant to 

CAA section 112, and, to the extent that 

NESHAP subpart X were revised during 

a future review, or otherwise modified, 

such that the monitoring requirements 

were no longer as stringent or more 

stringent than those finalized in 

subparts L and La, it would no longer 

be appropriate to permit the use of the 

monitoring requirements in NESHAP 

subpart X in lieu of those required by 

the NSPS. 

Comment: One commenter said that 

proposed NSPS subparts L and La (40 

CFR 60.124 and 60.124a) require that 

the monitoring systems comply with the 

applicable requirements specified in the 

NSPS General Provisions (40 CFR 60.13) 

but noted that 40 CFR 60.13(a) states 

that the section is only applicable 

‘‘upon promulgation of performance 

specifications for continuous 

monitoring systems under appendix B 

to this part.’’ The commenter contended 

that, because proposed NSPS subparts L 

and La do not require continuous 

monitoring systems to demonstrate 

compliance with emission limits, the 

EPA should revise the proposed 

language in 40 CFR 60.124 and 60.124a 

to include the following text: ‘‘The 

owner shall comply with the applicable 

monitoring requirements specified in 40 

CFR 60.13 upon promulgation of 

performance specifications in 40 CFR 

part 60—Appendix B for the continuous 

monitoring systems required in this 

section. The Procedures of 40 CFR part 

60—Appendix F do not apply because 

the continuous monitoring systems 

required in this section are not used to 

demonstrate compliance with emission 

limits on a continuous basis.’’ 

Response: The EPA disagrees with the 

commenter that additional text is 

needed in 40 CFR 60.124 or 60.124a. As 

the commenter noted, 40 CFR 60.124 

and 60.124a state that the owner shall 

comply with the applicable monitoring 

requirements specified in 40 CFR 60.13. 

Although the proposed NSPS subparts L 

and La do not require facilities to use 

continuous opacity monitoring systems 

(COMS) or continuous emissions 

monitoring systems (CEMS) to comply 

with the standards, NSPS subparts L 

and La do not preclude facilities from 

using COMS or CEMS. The performance 

standards are required if the continuous 

monitoring system is used to 

demonstrate compliance with emission 

limits on a continuous basis. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 80603 

F. Definitions 

1. Proposed Definitions 

The EPA proposed to incorporate the 

definitions shown in Table 1 of this 

preamble into 40 CFR 60.121 

(Definitions) of existing 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart L and 40 CFR 60.121a 

(Definitions) of the proposed 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart La. These proposed 

definitions were intended to improve 

the clarity of the NSPS subparts and to 

reduce potential confusion among 

industry and regulatory agencies by 

aligning the descriptions of the affected 

sources that would be regulated by 40 

CFR part 60, subparts L and La to be 

more consistent with the definitions 

within the NESHAP at 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart X, as shown in Table 1. These 

proposed changes did not affect the 

applicability of existing NSPS subpart L. 

TABLE 1—PART 60 PROCESS EQUIPMENT DEFINITIONS PROPOSED FOR NSPS SUBPARTS L AND La 

Equipment Current definition in NSPS 

subpart L NESHAP subpart X Proposed for NSPS subparts L and La 

Blast furnace ........................ Any furnace used to recover 

metal from slag.

A smelting furnace consisting of a 

vertical cylinder atop a crucible, into 

which lead-bearing charge materials 

are introduced at the top of the furnace and combustion air is introduced through tuyeres at the bottom 

of the cylinder, and that uses coke 

as a fuel source and that is operated 

at such a temperature in the combustion zone (greater than 980 Celsius) that lead compounds are 

chemically reduced to elemental lead 

metal.

A smelting furnace consisting of a 

vertical cylinder atop a crucible, into 

which lead-bearing charge materials 

are introduced at the top of the furnace and combustion air is introduced through tuyeres at the bottom 

of the cylinder, and that lead compounds are chemically reduced to 

elemental lead metal. 

Reverberatory furnace ......... Includes the following types 

of reverberatory furnaces: 

stationary, rotating, rocking, and tilting.

A refractory-lined furnace that uses one 

or more flames to heat the walls and 

roof of the furnace and lead-bearing 

scrap to such a temperature (greater 

than 980 Celsius) that lead compounds are chemically reduced to 

elemental lead metal.

A refractory-lined furnace that uses one 

or more flames to heat the walls and 

roof of the furnace and lead-bearing 

scrap such that lead compounds are 

chemically reduced to elemental lead 

metal. Reverberatory furnaces include the following types: stationary, 

rotating, rocking, and tilting. 

Pot furnace ........................... Not defined ............................ Refining kettle means an open-top vessel that is constructed of cast iron or 

steel and is indirectly heated from 

below and contains molten lead for 

the purpose of refining and alloying 

the lead. Included are pot furnaces, 

receiving kettles, and holding kettles.

Pot furnace is a type of refining kettle, 

which is an open-top vessel constructed of cast iron or steel and is 

indirectly heated from below and 

contains molten lead for the purpose 

of refining and alloying the lead. 

2. How the Final Rule Definitions Differ 

From the Proposed Definitions 

After considering the comments on 

the proposed definitions, the EPA is not 

adopting the proposed changes to the 

definitions for blast furnace, 

reverberatory furnace, and pot furnace 

in current NSPS subpart L. For NSPS 

subpart La, the EPA is maintaining in 40 

CFR 60.121a (Definitions) the 

definitions of ‘‘blast furnace,’’ ‘‘lead,’’ 

‘‘reverberatory furnace,’’ and 

‘‘secondary lead smelter’’ specified in 

current NSPS subpart L (instead of 

adopting the proposed definitions in 

Table 1, above) and finalizing the 

definition of ‘‘process fugitive emissions 

source.’’ Table 2 of this preamble shows 

the final process definitions for NSPS 

subpart La. 

TABLE 2—PART 60 FINAL DEFINITIONS FOR NSPS SUBPART LA

Equipment Final NSPS subpart La 

Blast furnace ................................... Blast furnace means any furnace used to recover metal from slag. 

Lead ................................................ Lead means elemental lead or alloys in which the predominant component is lead. 

Reverberatory furnace .................... Reverberatory furnace includes the following types of reverberatory furnaces: stationary, rotating, rocking, 

and tilting. 

Process fugitive emissions source A source of PM emissions at a secondary lead smelter that is associated with lead smelting or refining including, but not limited to, smelting furnace charging points; smelting furnace lead and slag taps; pot and 

refining furnaces; and casting kettles. 

3. Definition Comments and Responses 

Comment: One commenter provided 

several comments and 

recommendations regarding the 

proposed definitions in NSPS subparts 

L and La. The commenter said that the 

EPA should revise the proposed 

definition of ‘‘secondary lead smelter’’ 

to use the term ‘‘lead-bearing material’’ 

rather than ‘‘lead-bearing scrap 

material’’ and either include or crossreference the definition of ‘‘lead bearing 

material’’ from NESHAP subpart X (40 

CFR 63.542). The commenter noted that 

the proposed definitions in NSPS 

subparts L and La did not define either 

‘‘lead-bearing material’’ or ‘‘lead-bearing 

scrap material.’’ The commenter said 

that the EPA should clarify that these 

terms in the proposed definitions of 

‘‘blast furnace’’ and ‘‘reverberatory 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
80604 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

furnace’’ (40 CFR 60.121(a) and 

60.121a(a)), mean the same as ‘‘leadbearing material’’ as defined in NESHAP 

subpart X (40 CFR 63.542). 

The commenter stated that the EPA 

should align the proposed definition of 

‘‘blast furnace’’ in 40 CFR 60.121(d) and 

60.121a(d) with the NESHAP definition 

for ‘‘blast furnace’’ used in NESHAP 

subpart X (40 CFR 63.542) by including 

the phrases ‘‘uses coke as a fuel source’’ 

and ‘‘(greater than 980 Celsius)’’ to 

eliminate potential confusion about 

applicability and the possibility of any 

gaps between the NESHAP and NSPS 

definitions. The commenter said that 

the EPA should align the proposed 

definition of ‘‘reverberatory furnace’’ in 

NSPS subparts L and La (40 CFR 

60.121(a) and 60.121a(a)) with the 

NESHAP subpart X definition by 

excluding the last sentence of the 

proposed definition to eliminate 

potential confusion about applicability 

and the possibility of any gaps between 

the NESHAP and NSPS definitions: 

‘‘Reverberatory furnaces include the 

following types: stationary, rotating, 

rocking, and tilting furnaces.’’ 

The commenter said that the 

proposed definitions for ‘‘lead’’ in NSPS 

subparts L and La (40 CFR 60.121(c) and 

60.121a(c)) should include the term 

‘‘lead alloy,’’ rather than ‘‘alloy,’’ 

because ‘‘alloy’’ arguably could refer to 

certain unspecified non-lead alloys. The 

commenter stated that the EPA should 

change the term ‘‘alloy’’ to ‘‘lead alloy’’ 

and add the definition of ‘‘lead alloy’’ 

from NESHAP subpart X (40 CFR 

63.542) to NSPS subparts L and La. 

The commenter also noted that the 

proposed NSPS subparts L and La did 

not define the term ‘‘smelting’’ used in 

the proposed secondary lead smelter 

definition and said that the EPA should 

either include or cross-reference the 

definition of ‘‘smelting’’ from NESHAP 

subpart X (40 CFR 63.542). 

The commenter asserted that the EPA 

should clarify that, for a refining kettle 

that meets the pot furnace definition, 

the new pot furnace includes all of the 

typical refining kettle components 

including (as applicable): footers, 

structural steel, kettle or pot 

(constructed of cast iron or steel), 

indirect heating system (burners, piping, 

monitors, combustion air system, and 

flue), cover, fume collection system 

(hood), agitator (mixer, motor, drive, 

and mount), furnace shell, refractory 

lining, lead pump, electrical 

components (switches, controllers, etc.), 

and process monitors. The commenter 

noted that this clarification is important 

because facilities regularly replace both 

the kettle and the refractory lining 

component of the pot furnace during the 

pot furnace’s useful life and replacing 

the kettle or the refractory lining of a pot 

furnace potentially could be 

misinterpreted as reconstruction 

without appropriate clarification on this 

issue. 

The commenter also stated that the 

EPA should revise the definition of ‘‘pot 

furnace’’ at proposed 40 CFR 60.121(e) 

and 60.121a(e) as follows to clarify that 

the definition does not apply to 

receiving kettles, holding kettles, or 

R&D kettles: ‘‘(e) Pot furnace means a 

type of refining kettle, which is an opentop vessel constructed of cast iron or 

steel and is indirectly heated from 

below and contains molten lead for the 

purpose of refining and alloying the 

lead. For avoidance of doubt, the term 

‘‘pot furnace’’ excludes the following 

types of refining kettles: (i) receiving 

kettles and holding kettles where 

refining or alloying activities do not 

occur; and (ii) pot furnaces with a 

maximum capacity less than 5 tons 

molten metal that are operated fewer 

than 4000 hours per year.’’ 

The commenter noted that the 

important distinction between pot 

furnaces used for refining and alloying, 

on the one hand, and refining kettles 

used for receiving or holding molten 

lead, on the other hand, is not present 

in the proposed rule. Instead, the 

commenter said that the EPA proposed 

a definition of pot furnaces in 40 CFR 

60.120(e) and 60.120a(e) as ‘‘a type of 

refining kettle, which is an open-top 

vessel constructed of cast iron or steel 

and is indirectly heated from below and 

contains molten lead for the purpose of 

refining and alloying the lead.’’ 

Response: These proposed definitions 

were intended to improve the clarity of 

the NSPS subparts and to reduce 

potential confusion among industry and 

regulatory agencies by aligning the 

descriptions of the affected sources that 

would be regulated by NSPS subparts L 

and La to be more consistent with the 

definitions within the NESHAP subpart 

X. However, after considering the 

comments received regarding the 

proposed process equipment definitions 

and because of potential future changes 

to the definitions in NESHAP subpart X 

pursuant to the EPA’s upcoming review 

of NESHAP subpart X, which applies to 

new and existing sources, the EPA is not 

finalizing the proposed process 

equipment definition changes in subpart 

L and La. The EPA had determined that 

it is more appropriate to complete the 

NESHAP review first before finalizing 

any changes to the existing definitions 

in NSPS subparts L and La for blast 

furnace, lead, reverberatory furnace, and 

secondary lead. 

As part of the NESHAP review 

process, the EPA will acquire new 

information regarding secondary lead 

process equipment, which could result 

in revisions to the existing NESHAP 

definitions or development of new 

definitions. Were the EPA to finalize the 

proposed definitions in NSPS subparts 

L and La at this time, such future 

revisions to the definitions in NESHAP 

subpart X may create new 

inconsistencies. In this case, finalizing 

the proposed definitions to NSPS 

subparts L and La would not increase 

clarity and consistency as intended. 

Instead, any definition changes made in 

NSPS subparts L and La at this time 

with the intent of improving the 

consistency between the NSPS and 

NESHAP definitions would be 

mistimed, and the EPA might need to 

consider further revising the NSPS 

definitions established in this action in 

the future to reflect the equipment 

definitions specified in the post-review 

NESHAP. Because the EPA has decided 

not to finalize the revised definitions, 

the EPA does not need to provide 

detailed responses to the comments 

suggesting specific revisions to those 

definitions. 

In addition, after revisiting the 

process definitions that have been in 

NSPS subpart L since 1983, we find that 

no changes are needed to improve 

clarity as initially thought at proposal. 

Therefore, we are not finalizing any 

changes to the existing definitions in 

NSPS subpart L or in NSPS subpart La. 

Instead, we are maintaining the blast 

furnace, lead, reverberatory furnace, and 

secondary lead smelter definitions 

currently specified in NSPS subpart L. 

However, we are adding to NSPS 

subpart La a definition for ‘‘process 

fugitive emissions source’’ to 

accommodate the final PM standard for 

pot furnaces (see the discussion in 

section IV.A.2. of this preamble). Also, 

regarding the comments that the EPA 

should include the term ‘‘lead alloy,’’ 

rather than ‘‘alloy,’’ the current subpart 

L and new subpart La both state that 

‘‘Lead means elemental lead or alloys in 

which the predominant component is 

lead.’’ This definition is clear that the 

only alloys affected by the rule are 

alloys in which the predominant 

component is lead. The term ‘‘alloys in 

which the predominant component is 

lead’’ essentially means the same thing 

as ‘‘lead alloys’’. Therefore, we did not 

make any changes to the definition of 

lead or add a new definition for lead 

alloys to subparts L or La. 

With regard to the comment that the 

EPA should include a definition of 

smelting or provide a cross reference, 

because of potential future changes to 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 80605 

the definitions in NESHAP subpart X 

(including for ‘‘smelting’’) pursuant the 

EPA’s upcoming review of NESHAP 

subpart X (discussed above), which 

applies to new and existing sources, the 

EPA decided not to add a new 

definition for smelting in subpart L or 

La at this time because of potential 

inconsistencies once the EPA completes 

the next NESHAP review. 

Regarding the comment that EPA 

should revise the definition of ‘‘pot 

furnace’’, this may have been an 

important clarification for the NSPS 

final rule if the EPA finalized the 

proposed pot furnace specific emissions 

limit of 3 mg/dscm. However, as 

explained in a previous response, 

instead of a pot furnace specific limit, 

the EPA is promulgating a PM limit of 

4.9 mg/dscm for process fugitive 

emissions, which includes pot furnaces, 

but also includes other process fugitive 

emissions sources (such as refining 

kettles, holding kettles, alloying units). 

Therefore, we conclude that the specific 

definition clarifications requested by the 

commenter are no longer necessary for 

implementation of the NSPS and can 

wait until the EPA completes the next 

NESHAP review. 

G. Effective Date and Compliance Dates 

Pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), 

the effective date of the final rule 

requirements in NSPS subpart La and 

amendments to NSPS subpart L will be 

the promulgation date, which is the date 

of publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register. Affected sources that 

commence construction, reconstruction, 

or modification after December 1, 2022, 

must comply with all requirements of 

NSPS subpart La no later than the 

effective date of the final rule or upon 

startup, whichever is later. 

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, 

and Economic Impacts 

A. What are the air quality impacts? 

The final amendments to 40 CFR part 

60, subpart La: 

• Reduce the PM emissions limit for 

blast and reverberatory furnaces from 50 

to 10 mg/dscm. 

• Establish new PM emissions limits 

for process fugitive emissions sources of 

4.9 mg/dscm. 

• Lower the opacity limit for blast 

and reverberatory furnaces from 20 

percent to 5 percent. 

• Lower the opacity limit for pot 

furnaces from 10 percent to 5 percent. 

New or reconstructed blast, 

reverberatory, and pot furnaces will also 

be subject to the NESHAP (40 CFR part 

63, subpart X) requirements for new 

sources, while modified blast, 

reverberatory, and pot furnaces will also 

be subject to the NESHAP requirements 

for existing sources. NESHAP subpart X 

regulates particulate lead emissions 

from process vent, process fugitive, and 

fugitive dust sources. The emissions 

capture systems and control devices that 

are already required by the NESHAP to 

comply with the lead limits for blast 

furnaces, reverberatory furnaces, and 

process fugitive emissions sources will 

also control PM emissions regulated by 

the NSPS. Therefore, the final 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart La will not result in 

actual reductions of PM emissions. 

However, codifying the lower PM and 

opacity limits in the final 40 CFR part 

60, subpart La will significantly reduce 

the PM and opacity allowable emissions 

of affected sources that commence 

construction, reconstruction, or 

modification after December 1, 2022. 

B. What are the secondary impacts? 

Indirect or secondary air emissions 

impacts result from the increased energy 

usage associated with the operation of 

control devices (e.g., increased 

secondary emissions of criteria 

pollutants from electricity generating 

power plants). The EPA does not expect 

that facilities will need any additional 

control devices or other equipment to 

meet the final NSPS requirements 

beyond those that would already be 

needed to comply with the NESHAP. 

Therefore, the EPA does not attribute 

any secondary impacts to the final 40 

CFR part 60, subpart La. 

C. What are the cost impacts for 

regulated facilities? 

For 40 CFR part 60, subparts L and La, 

the EPA requires that facilities conduct 

periodic performance tests to measure 

PM emissions using EPA Method 5 

(Determination of Particulate Matter 

Emissions from Stationary Sources). The 

NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart X) 

also requires periodic tests for lead 

using EPA Method 12 (Determination of 

Inorganic Lead Emissions from 

Stationary Sources) or EPA Method 29 

(Metal Emissions from Stationary 

Sources). Because both of the NESHAP 

test methods analyze the PM captured 

on the internal surfaces of the sampling 

probe and on a sampling train filter to 

determine the lead concentration, 

facilities can conduct an additional 

gravimetric analysis of the EPA Method 

12 or EPA Method 29 probe rinse and 

filter to determine PM emissions, rather 

than performing separate tests using 

EPA Method 5. The EPA estimates that 

the additional gravimetric analysis of 

the EPA Method 12 or EPA Method 29 

particulate filter costs approximately 

$300 per test per year. To estimate the 

total cost associated with the final 

periodic PM performance tests under 40 

CFR part 60, subparts L and La, the EPA 

assumed that each respondent under the 

respective subparts would conduct 3 

p.m. tests per year (1 for each furnace 

type). See section V.C. of this preamble 

for more details on cost estimates. 

For 40 CFR part 60, subpart La, the 

EPA is also requiring that facilities 

periodically determine the opacity of 

blast furnace, reverberatory furnace, and 

process fugitive source emissions. For 

NSPS subpart La, the EPA is requiring 

that facilities conduct initial and 

periodic tests using EPA Method 9 or 

ASTM D7520–16. Alternatively, 

facilities can use EPA Method 22 

(Visible Determination of Fugitive 

Emissions) to determine no visible 

emissions from blast furnace, 

reverberatory furnace, and process 

fugitive emissions sources. To estimate 

the cost of the initial and periodic 

opacity tests for NSPS subpart La, the 

EPA assumed that new facilities would 

be able to determine no visible 

emissions using EPA Method 22, rather 

than using EPA Method 9. The EPA 

assumed that new facilities would train 

facility personnel to implement EPA 

Method 22 (at a one-time cost of $426 

per facility), but not incur additional 

capital costs associated with conducting 

the EPA Method 9 observations. 

We estimate that 2 of the 11 existing 

facilities will be modified or 

reconstructed over the next five years 

such that these 2 facilities will be 

subject to subpart La, and the other 9 

facilities will be subject to subpart L. 

Therefore, for 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

L, the total incremental cost for the 

periodic PM testing over the 3-year 

period is $16,200 three tests per year at 

$300 per test for 9 respondents for years 

2 and 3 (facilities subject to subpart L 

have already conducted initial 

performance tests for PM emissions and 

opacity). For 40 CFR part 60, subpart La, 

the total incremental cost for PM testing 

over the 3-year period is $8,100 (i.e., 

three tests per year at $300 per test for 

the two existing facilities that the EPA 

assumes will undergo reconstruction 

and one new facility) and the total 

incremental cost for opacity testing is 

$426 for EPA Method 22 training (i.e., 

$426 one-time cost for the new facility). 

Based on a review of facility operating 

permits, the two existing facilities that 

we determined could be reconstructed 

over the 3-year period (thereby 

triggering NSPS subpart La 

applicability) already conduct periodic 

opacity tests using EPA Method 9. 

Therefore, the EPA did not estimate 

opacity testing costs for the two 

potential reconstructed facilities. The 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
80606 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

2See https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice. 

3See https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/ 

technical-guidance-assessing-environmentaljustice-regulatory-analysis. 

estimated total incremental cost for 

emissions testing for two reconstructed 

sources and one new source projected 

over the 3-year period is $8,526. 

The EPA did not estimate cost 

impacts for the final monitoring 

requirements in 40 CFR part 60, 

subparts L and La because this action 

will allow subject facilities to comply 

with these subparts by complying with 

the applicable monitoring requirements 

for new sources specified in the 

NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart X). 

Therefore, there is no additional 

monitoring burden. 

D. What are the economic impacts? 

The EPA conducted an economic 

impact analysis (EIA) and small 

business screening assessment for this 

final action, as discussed in the 

proposal for this action and detailed in 

the memorandum, Economic Impact 

Analysis for Final Revisions and 

Amendments to the New Source 

Performance Standards for Secondary 

Lead Smelters, which is available in the 

docket for this action. The economic 

impacts of this final action were 

estimated by comparing total 

annualized compliance costs to 

revenues at the ultimate parent 

company level. This is known as the 

cost-to-revenue or cost-to-sales test. This 

ratio provides a measure of the direct 

economic impact to ultimate parent 

company owners of facilities while 

presuming no impact on consumers. 

As discussed in the proposal for this 

action, we estimate that the total cost for 

emissions testing, reporting, and 

recordkeeping projected over the 3-year 

period for the 9 sources subject to NSPS 

subpart L is $80,000. The average 

annual cost per facility is approximately 

$3,000. The 9 facilities subject to NSPS 

subpart L are owned by seven different 

parent companies with an annual 

average revenue of $4.5 billion in 2021. 

As discussed in section V.C. of this 

preamble, we assume the other 2 

existing facilities will be modified or 

reconstructed and therefore will be 

subject to subpart La. The economic 

impact associated with this cost as an 

annual cost per sales, for the average 

parent company in the industry, is less 

than 0.0001 percent and is not expected 

to result in a significant market impact, 

regardless of whether it is fully passed 

on to the consumer or fully absorbed by 

the affected firms. 

In addition, the cost analysis assumed 

that facilities subject to final 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart La would conduct 

initial and periodic tests for PM 

emissions and opacity, but would not 

need to install control devices to meet 

the final PM and opacity emissions 

limits because the new, modified, or 

reconstructed facility would install the 

same types of controls already necessary 

to comply with NESHAP subpart X. The 

EPA also assumed that facilities subject 

to the final NSPS subpart La would not 

incur monitoring costs attributed to the 

new NSPS. 

The EPA views the testing costs to be 

upper-bound estimates on the potential 

compliance costs of the final 40 CFR 

part 60, subparts L and La. Even under 

the upper-bound cost assumptions 

described above, the EPA expects the 

potential economic impacts of this final 

action will be small. 

As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA), we performed an 

analysis to determine if any small 

entities might be disproportionately 

impacted by the final requirements. The 

EPA does not know with certainty 

which existing facilities may be 

reconstructed or modified in the future 

and subject to NSPS subpart La, and 

therefore cannot perform an accurate 

cost-to-sales analysis. However, based 

on an assessment of the projected 

growth in the secondary lead smelting 

industry, the EPA believes it is unlikely 

that any future facilities will be 

reconstructed or modified by a small 

business. 

E. What are the benefits? 

The final revisions to 40 CFR part 60, 

subparts L and La clarify both rules, 

improve the practical enforceability of 

the rules, and enhance compliance and 

enforcement. The EPA expects that 

implementing the final amendments to 

40 CFR part 60, subparts L and La will 

help ensure that control systems used to 

reduce PM and opacity emissions from 

affected sources are properly operated 

and maintained over time. 

Additionally, the final amendments to 

require electronic reporting of emissions 

test results in 40 CFR part 60, subparts 

L and La will ultimately reduce the 

burden on regulated facilities, delegated 

air agencies, and the EPA, and also 

improve access to data, minimize data 

reporting errors, and eliminate paper 

waste and redundancies. 

F. What analysis of environmental 

justice did we conduct? 

Executive Order 12898 directs the 

EPA to identify the populations of 

concern who are most likely to 

experience unequal burdens from 

environmental harms, which are 

specifically minority populations 

(people of color), low-income 

populations, and Indigenous peoples 

(59 FR 7629; February 16, 1994). 

Additionally, Executive Order 13985 is 

intended to advance racial equity and 

support underserved communities 

through Federal government actions (86 

FR 7009; January 20, 2021). The EPA 

defines environmental justice (EJ) as 

‘‘the fair treatment and meaningful 

involvement of all people regardless of 

race, color, national origin, or income, 

with respect to the development, 

implementation, and enforcement of 

environmental laws, regulations, and 

policies.’’ 2 The EPA further defines fair 

treatment to mean that ‘‘no group of 

people should bear a disproportionate 

burden of environmental harms and 

risks, including those resulting from the 

negative environmental consequences of 

industrial, governmental, and 

commercial operations or programs and 

policies.’’ In recognizing that people of 

color and low-income populations often 

bear an unequal burden of 

environmental harms and risks, the EPA 

continues to consider ways of protecting 

them from adverse public health and 

environmental effects of air pollution. 

For purposes of analyzing regulatory 

impacts, the EPA relies upon its June 

2016 Technical Guidance for Assessing 

Environmental Justice in Regulatory 

Analysis,3 which provides 

recommendations that encourage 

analysts to conduct the highest quality 

analysis feasible, recognizing that data 

limitations, time, resource constraints, 

and analytical challenges will vary by 

media and circumstance. The Technical 

Guidance states that a regulatory action 

may involve potential EJ concerns if it 

could: (1) create new disproportionate 

impacts on minority populations, lowincome populations, and/or indigenous 

peoples; (2) exacerbate existing 

disproportionate impacts on minority 

populations, low-income populations, 

and/or indigenous peoples; or (3) 

present opportunities to address 

existing disproportionate impacts on 

minority populations, low-income 

populations, and/or indigenous peoples 

through this action under development. 

The Agency has conducted an 

analysis of the demographics of the 

populations living near existing 

facilities in the Secondary Lead 

Smelting source category. Because this 

action finalizes standards of 

performance for new, modified, and 

reconstructed sources that commence 

construction after December 1, 2022, the 

locations of the construction of new 

secondary lead smelters are not known. 

As discussed above, we assumed two 

existing facilities might be modified. 

However, it is not known with any 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 80607 

certainty which of the existing 

secondary lead smelters might be 

modified or reconstructed. Therefore, 

the demographic analysis was 

conducted for the 11 existing secondary 

lead smelters as a proxy for the 

characterization of the demographics in 

areas where new, modified, or 

reconstructed source might be located in 

the future. 

Section F. (‘‘What analysis of 

environmental justice did we 

conduct?’’) of the proposal preamble (87 

FR 73708) presents the full results of the 

demographic analysis. The analysis 

included an assessment of individual 

demographic groups of the populations 

living within 5 kilometers (km) and 

within 50 km of the existing facilities. 

We then compared the data from the 

analysis to the national average for each 

of the demographic groups. The results 

show that, for populations within 5 km 

of the 11 secondary lead smelters, the 

percent Hispanic or Latino population is 

higher than the national average (38 

percent versus 19 percent). The percent 

of ‘‘other and multiracial population’’ 

and people living in linguistic isolation 

within the same geographic area are 

higher than the national average (12 

percent versus 8 percent and 8 percent 

versus 5 percent, respectively). The 

percent of the population over 25 

without a high school diploma is higher 

than the national average (19 percent 

versus 12 percent), while the percent of 

the population living below the poverty 

line is similar to the national average. 

The results of the analysis of 

populations within 50 km of the 11 

secondary lead smelters are similar to 

the 5 km analysis. 

The technical report, Analysis of 

Demographic Factors for Populations 

Living Near Secondary Lead Smelting 

Source Category Operations, which is 

available in the docket for this action 

(Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2022– 

0481), presents the methodology and the 

results of the demographic analysis. 

As indicated above, the locations of 

any new secondary lead smelting 

facilities that would be subject to NSPS 

subpart La are not known. Also, it is not 

known with any certainty which 

existing secondary lead smelters may be 

modified or reconstructed and subject to 

the NSPS subpart La. Thus, we are 

limited in our ability to estimate the 

potential EJ impacts of this rule. 

However, we anticipate the changes to 

the NSPS will generally minimize or 

reduce future emissions in surrounding 

communities of new, modified, or 

reconstructed facilities, including those 

communities with higher percentages of 

people of color. Furthermore, the EPA 

expects that the NSPS subpart La, will 

ensure compliance with the PM 

emissions and opacity limits at all times 

(including periods of SSM) via initial 

and periodic emissions testing. NSPS 

subpart La also codifies standards of 

performance reflecting improvements in 

PM control technologies that have 

occurred in the industry since 

promulgation of the current NSPS 

subpart L. Therefore, effects of 

emissions on populations in proximity 

to any future affected sources, including 

in communities potentially 

overburdened by pollution, which are 

often people of color, low-income, and 

Indigenous communities, will be 

minimized due to compliance with the 

standards of performance being 

finalized in this action. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive orders can be 

found at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory 

Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, as amended by 

Executive Order 14094, and was 

therefore not subject to a requirement 

for Executive Order 12866 review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

The information collection activities 

in this final rule have been submitted 

for approval to OMB under the PRA. 

The updated Information Collection 

Request (ICR) document that the EPA 

prepared for NSPS subpart L has been 

assigned EPA ICR number 1128.13, and 

the new ICR prepared for the final NSPS 

subpart La has been assigned EPA ICR 

number 2729.01. You can find copies of 

the ICRs in the docket for this rule, and 

they are briefly summarized here. The 

information collection requirements are 

not enforceable until OMB approves 

them. 

The EPA is finalizing amendments to 

the existing NSPS (40 CFR part 60, 

subpart L) that: 

• Require periodic testing for PM 

emissions. 

• Incorporate monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements that are consistent with 

NESHAP subpart X. 

• Require electronic reporting of 

performance test results. 

A summary of the ICR for NSPS 

subpart L follows: 

Respondents/affected entities: 

Secondary lead smelting facilities. 

Respondent’s obligation to respond: 

Mandatory (40 CFR part 60, subpart L). 

Estimated number of respondents: 

Nine existing facilities subject to 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart L. 

Frequency of response: Annually. 

Total estimated burden: The annual 

recordkeeping and reporting burden for 

facilities to comply with all the 

requirements in the NSPS is estimated 

to be 228 hours (per year). Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

Total estimated cost: The annual 

recordkeeping and reporting costs for all 

facilities to comply with all the 

requirements in the NSPS is estimated 

to be $27,000 (per year). 

The EPA is also finalizing a new 

subpart (40 CFR part 60, subpart La) for 

new, modified, or reconstructed 

facilities that commenced construction, 

reconstruction, or modification after 

December 1, 2022, that: 

• Includes definitions for ‘‘blast 

furnace,’’ ‘‘lead,’’ ‘‘reverberatory 

furnace,’’ and ‘‘secondary lead smelter’’ 

that are the same as NSPS subpart L. 

• Includes a definition for ‘‘process 

fugitive emissions source’’ to be 

consistent with the definition used in 

NESHAP subpart X. 

• Establishes a tighter PM limit (10 

mg/dscm) for blast and reverberatory 

furnaces. 

• Establishes a new PM limit (4.9 mg/ 

dscm) for process fugitive emissions 

sources. 

• Establishes a tighter opacity limit (5 

percent) for blast, reverberatory, and 

process fugitive emissions sources. 

• Removes the exemptions for 

periods of SSM. 

• Requires initial and periodic testing 

for PM emissions and opacity. 

• Incorporates monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements that are consistent with 

the NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart 

X). 

• Requires electronic reporting of 

performance test results. 

A summary of the ICR for NSPS 

subpart La follows: 

Respondents/affected entities: 

Secondary lead smelting facilities. 

Respondent’s obligation to respond: 

Mandatory (40 CFR part 60, subpart La). 

Estimated number of respondents: 

Three facilities (two reconstructed and 

one new source) in the next 3 years. 

Frequency of response: Annually. 

Total estimated burden: The annual 

recordkeeping and reporting burden for 

facilities to comply with all the 

requirements in the NSPS is estimated 

to be 127 hours (per year). Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

Total estimated cost: The annual 

recordkeeping and reporting costs for all 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
80608 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

facilities to comply with all the 

requirements in the NSPS is estimated 

to be $14,000 (per year). 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When 

OMB approves this ICR, the Agency will 

announce that approval in the Federal 

Register and publish a technical 

amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display 

the OMB control number for the 

approved information collection 

activities contained in this final rule. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

(SISNOSE) under the RFA. 

This action will not impose any 

significant requirements on small 

entities. Details of the analysis in 

support of this determination are 

presented in the memorandum titled, 

Economic Impact Analysis and Small 

Business Screening Assessment for 

Final Revisions and Amendments to the 

New Source Performance Standards for 

Secondary Lead Smelters, which is 

available in the docket for this action 

(Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2022– 

0481). 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain an 

unfunded mandate of $100 million or 

more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538, and does not significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. This 

action imposes no enforceable duty on 

any state, local, or tribal governments, 

and there are no nationwide annualized 

costs of this final rule for affected 

industrial sources in the private sector. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249; November 9, 

2000). It will not have substantial direct 

effects on tribal governments, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

government and Indian Tribes or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Indian Tribes, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175. 

This final rule imposes requirements on 

owners and operators of secondary lead 

smelting facilities and not tribal 

governments. The EPA does not know of 

any secondary lead smelting facilities 

owned or operated by Indian tribal 

governments. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045 directs Federal 

agencies to include an evaluation of the 

health and safety effects of the planned 

regulation on children in Federal health 

and safety standards and explain why 

the regulation is preferable to 

potentially effective and reasonably 

feasible alternatives. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it is not a significant regulatory 

action under section 3(f)(1) of Executive 

Order 12866, and because the EPA does 

not believe the environmental health or 

safety risks addressed by this action 

present a disproportionate risk to 

children. 

The EPA does not believe there are 

disproportionate risks to children 

because the new NSPS subpart La 

lowers PM emissions and opacity from 

new, modified, or reconstructed 

secondary lead smelters compared to 

the current NSPS, which will benefit 

children’s health. Additionally, the 

periodic PM emissions and opacity 

testing requirements of NSPS subparts 

La and L, and the updated monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements, improve compliance with 

emission limits, which also benefits 

children’s health. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR 

Part 51 

This action involves technical 

standards. The EPA is requiring use of 

EPA Method 5 (Determination of 

Particulate Matter emissions from 

Stationary Sources) to measure filterable 

PM and EPA Method 9 (Visual 

Determination of the Opacity of 

Emissions from Stationary Sources) to 

determine visible emissions from blast 

and reverberatory process vents and 

process fugitive emissions. Therefore, 

the EPA conducted searches for the 

Secondary Lead Smelting NSPS through 

the Enhanced National Standards 

Systems Network Database managed by 

the American National Standards 

Institute (ANSI). We also contacted 

voluntary consensus standards (VCS) 

organizations and accessed and 

searched their databases. 

We conducted searches for EPA 

Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2F, 

2G, 2H, 3, 3A, 3C, 4, 5, 9, 12, 22, and 

29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. 

During the EPA’s VCS search, if the title 

or abstract (if provided) of the VCS 

described technical sampling and 

analytical procedures that are similar to 

the EPA’s reference method, the EPA 

reviewed it as a potential equivalent 

method. We reviewed all potential 

standards to determine the practicality 

of the VCS for this rule. This review 

requires significant method validation 

data that meet the requirements of EPA 

Method 301 for accepting alternative 

methods or scientific, engineering, and 

policy equivalence to procedures in the 

EPA reference methods. The EPA may 

reconsider determinations of 

impracticality when additional 

information is available for a particular 

VCS. No applicable VCS were identified 

for EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2B, 2C, 

2D, 2F, 2G, 2H, 3, 3A, 3C, 4, 5, 12, 22, 

or 29. 

In this final action, the EPA 

incorporates by reference the VCS 

ASTM D7520–16, ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Determining the Opacity of 

a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient 

Atmosphere approved April 1, 2016’’ 

which is an instrumental method to 

determine plume opacity in the outdoor 

ambient environment as an alternative 

to visual measurements made by 

certified smoke readers in accordance 

with EPA Method 9. The concept of 

ASTM D7520–16, also known as the 

Digital Camera Opacity Technique or 

DCOT, is a test protocol to determine 

the opacity of visible emissions using a 

digital camera. This method is based on 

previous method development using 

digital still cameras and field testing of 

those methods. The purpose of ASTM 

D7520–16 is to set a minimum level of 

performance for products that use DCOT 

to determine plume opacity in ambient 

environments. 

The DCOT method is an acceptable 

alternative to EPA Method 9 with the 

following caveats: 

• During the digital camera opacity 

technique (DCOT) certification 

procedure outlined in section 9.2 of 

ASTM D7520–16, you or the DCOT 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 80609 

vendor must present the plumes in front 

of various backgrounds of color and 

contrast representing conditions 

anticipated during field use such as blue 

sky, trees, and mixed backgrounds 

(clouds and/or a sparse tree stand). 

• You must also have SOP in place 

including daily or other frequency 

quality checks to ensure the equipment 

is within manufacturing specifications 

as outlined in section 8.1 of ASTM 

D7520–16. 

• You must follow the recordkeeping 

procedures outlined in 40 CFR 

63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification, 

compliance report, data sheets, and all 

raw unaltered JPEG files used for 

opacity and certification determination. 

• You or the DCOT vendor must have 

a minimum of four independent 

technology users apply the software to 

determine the visible opacity of the 300 

certification plumes. For each set of 25 

plumes, the user may not exceed 15 

percent opacity of any one reading and 

the average error must not exceed 7.5 

percent opacity. 

• This approval does not provide or 

imply a certification or validation of any 

vendor’s hardware or software. The 

onus to maintain and verify the 

certification and/or training of the 

DCOT camera, software and operator in 

accordance with ASTM D7520–16 and 

this letter is on the facility, DCOT 

operator, and DCOT vendor. This 

method describes procedures to 

determine the opacity of a plume, using 

digital imagery and associated hardware 

and software, where opacity is caused 

by PM emitted from a stationary point 

source in the outdoor ambient 

environment. The opacity of emissions 

is determined by the application of a 

DCOT that consists of a digital still 

camera, analysis software, and the 

output function’s content to obtain and 

interpret digital images to determine 

and report plume opacity. 

The ASTM D7520–16 document is 

available from ASTM at https://

www.astm.org or 1100 Barr Harbor 

Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428– 

2959, telephone number: (610) 832– 

9500, fax number: (610) 8329555; 

service@astm.org. 

The EPA is finalizing the use of the 

guidance document, EPA–454/R–98– 

015, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards (OAQPS Fabric Filter Bag 

Leak Detection Guidance, September 

1997. This document provides guidance 

on the use of triboelectric monitors as 

fabric filter bag leak detectors. The 

document includes fabric filter and 

monitoring system descriptions; 

guidance on monitor selection, 

installation, setup, adjustment, and 

operation; and quality assurance 

procedures. Several types of 

instruments are available to monitor 

changes in particulate emission rates for 

the purpose of detecting fabric filter bag 

leaks or similar failures. The principles 

of operation of these instruments 

include electrical charge transfer and 

light scattering. The document is 

available at https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ 

ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=2000D5T6.PDF. 

Additional information for the VCS 

search and determinations can be found 

in the docket for this final action 

(Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2022– 

0481). 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations and Executive 

Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation’s 

Commitment to Environmental Justice 

for All 

Executive Order 14096 (88 FR 25251, 

Apr. 26, 2023) directs federal agencies 

to advance the goal of environmental 

justice for all. This action builds upon 

and supplements the efforts of 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) to address 

environmental justice. 

The EPA believes that the human 

health or environmental conditions that 

exist prior to this action result in or 

have the potential to result in 

disproportionate and adverse human 

health or environmental effects on 

communities with environmental justice 

concerns. The locations of future new, 

modified, and reconstructed secondary 

lead smelters are not known with any 

certainty. Therefore, we evaluated the 

populations living near existing 

secondary lead smelters as a proxy for 

the characteristics of the demographics 

in areas where a new, modified, or 

reconstructed source might locate in the 

future. The result of the analysis shows 

that the percent Hispanic or Latino 

population, ‘‘other and multiracial 

population’’ and people living in 

linguistic isolation within the same 

geographic area, over 25 without a high 

school diploma are higher than the 

national average. 

The EPA believes that this action is 

likely to reduce existing potential 

disproportionate and adverse effects on 

communities with environmental justice 

concerns. We anticipate the changes to 

the NSPS will generally minimize or 

reduce future emissions in these 

communities that are in proximity to 

new, modified, or reconstructed 

facilities. Specifically, the EPA expects 

that the Standards of Performance for 

Secondary Lead Smelters Constructed 

after December 1, 2022, will ensure 

compliance with the PM and opacity 

limits at all times (including periods of 

SSM) via initial and periodic emissions 

testing and parametric monitoring of 

control devices. Subpart La also codifies 

improvements in PM control 

technologies that have occurred in the 

industry since promulgation of the 

current NSPS subpart L. Therefore, 

effects of emissions on populations in 

proximity to any future affected sources, 

including in communities with 

environmental justice concerns, will be 

minimized due to compliance with the 

standards of performance being 

finalized in this action. 

The information supporting this 

Executive Order review is contained in 

a technical report, Analysis of 

Demographic Factors for Populations 

Living Near Secondary Lead Smelting 

Source Category Operations, available 

in the docket for this action (Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2022–0481), and in 

section IV.F. of the proposed rule’s 

preamble (87 FR 73708), as well as 

summarized in section V.F. of this 

preamble. 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

This action is subject to the CRA, and 

the EPA will submit a rule report to 

each House of the Congress and to the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ 

as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedures, 

Air pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Michael S. Regan, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Environmental Protection 

Agency amends title 40, chapter I of the 

Code of Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 60—STANDARDS OF 

PERFORMANCE FOR NEW 

STATIONARY SOURCES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 60 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart A—General Provisions 

■ 2. Amend § 60.17 by revising 

paragraphs (h)(206) and (j)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 60.17 Incorporations by reference. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(206) ASTM D7520–16, Standard Test 

Method for Determining the Opacity of 

a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
80610 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

Atmosphere, approved April 1, 2016; 

IBR approved for §§ 60.123(c)(6); 

60.123(c)(6)(i); 60.123(c)(6)(ii); 

60.123(c)(6)(v); 60.123a(c)(6)(ii); 

60.123a(c)(6)(ii)(A); 60.123a(c)(6)(ii)(B); 

60.123a(c)(6)(ii)(E); 60.271(k); 60.272(a) 

and (b); 60.273(c) and (d); 60.274(h); 

60.275(e); 60.276(c); 60.271a; 60.272a(a) 

and (b); 60.273a(c) and (d); 60.274a(h); 

60.275a(e); 60.276a(f); 60.271b; 

60.272b(a) and (b); 60.273b(c) and (d); 

60.274b(h); 60.275b(e); 60.276b(f); 

60.374a(d). 

* * * * * 

(j) * * * 

(2) EPA–454/R–98–015, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards 

(OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag Leak 

Detection Guidance, September 1997, 

https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ 

ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=2000D5T6.PDF; IBR 

approved for §§ 60.124(f); 60.124a(f); 

60.273(e); 60.273a(e); 60.273b(e); 

60.373a(b); 60.2145(r); 60.2710(r); 

60.4905(b); 60.5225(b). 

* * * * * 

Subpart L—Standards of Performance 

for Secondary Lead Smelters for 

Which Construction, Reconstruction, 

or Modification Commenced After June 

11, 1973, and On or Before December 

1, 2022 

■ 3. Revise the heading for subpart L to 

part 60 to read as set forth above. 

■ 4. Amend § 60.120 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 60.120 Applicability and designation of 

affected facility. 

* * * * * 

(b) Any facility under paragraph (a) of 

this section that commences 

construction or modification after June 

11, 1973, and on or before December 1, 

2022, is subject to the requirements of 

this subpart. 

■ 5. Amend § 60.122 by revising 

paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 60.122 Standard for particulate matter. 

(a) * * * 

(1) Contain particulate matter (PM) in 

excess of 50 milligrams per dry standard 

cubic meter, mg/dscm (0.022 grains per 

dry standard cubic feet, gr/dscf). 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Revise § 60.123 to read as follows: 

§ 60.123 Test methods and procedures. 

(a) Initial performance tests. The 

owner or operator shall conduct 

performance tests to demonstrate initial 

compliance with the PM emission and 

opacity standards specified in § 60.122. 

(b) Periodic performance tests. After 

November 20, 2023, the owner or 

operator shall conduct periodic 

performance tests to demonstrate 

compliance with the PM emissions 

standards specified in § 60.122(a). The 

owner or operator shall conduct the first 

periodic test by no later than July 31, 

2024. The owner or operator shall 

conduct subsequent periodic tests 

according to the schedule specified in 

paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section. 

(1) Conduct performance tests no later 

than 12 months following the previous 

compliance test. 

(2) Conduct performance tests no later 

than 24 months following the previous 

compliance test if the previous 

compliance test measured PM emissions 

of 25 mg/dscm or less and the owner or 

operator has obtained approval from the 

Administrator for a written request to 

extend the period of the periodic 

performance test. The extension request 

will be deemed automatically approved 

if the owner or operator submits the 

results of a PM performance test of 25 

mg/dscm or less, the owner or operator 

submits the request for the extension 

within 4 months after the subject 

compliance test, and the Administrator 

does not provide a response to such 

request within 6 months of submission. 

(c) Test methods. In conducting the 

performance tests required in § 60.8, the 

owner or operator shall use the 

following EPA reference test methods 

and procedures in appendix A of this 

part or other methods and procedures as 

specified in this section, except as 

provided in § 60.8(b). 

(1) EPA Method 1 at appendix A–1 to 

this part to select sampling port 

locations and the number of traverse 

points. 

(2) EPA Method 2 at appendix A–1 to 

this part or EPA Method 5D at appendix 

A–3 to this part, section 8.3 for positive 

fabric filters, to measure the volumetric 

flow rate of the gas stream. 

(3) EPA Method 3, 3A, or 3B at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–2 to determine 

the dry molecular weight of the stack 

gas and concentrations of carbon 

dioxide and oxygen in the sample gas. 

(4) EPA Method 4 at appendix A–3 to 

this part to determine the moisture 

content of the gas stream. 

(5) EPA Method 5 or 5D at appendix 

A–3 to this part to measure PM 

concentrations. The EPA Method 5 tests 

shall be conducted during 

representative periods of furnace 

operation, including charging and 

tapping, and the sampling time and 

sample volume for each test run shall be 

at least 60 minutes and 0.90 dscm (31.8 

dscf), respectively. As an alternative to 

using EPA Method 5, owners or 

operators may measure PM emissions by 

the following methods: 

(i) EPA Method 12 at appendix A–5 

to this part (see section 16.1 of Method 

12) to measure PM and inorganic lead 

concentrations. 

(ii) EPA Method 29 at appendix A–8 

to this part to measure metal (lead) 

concentrations and PM (see section 1.2 

of Method 29). 

(6) EPA Method 9 at appendix A–4 to 

this part and the procedures specified in 

§ 60.11 for determining opacity. ASTM 

D7520–16 (incorporated by reference at 

§ 60.17) is an acceptable alternative to 

EPA Method 9 with the specified 

conditions in paragraphs (c)(6)(i) 

through (v) of this section. 

(i) During the digital camera opacity 

technique (DCOT) certification 

procedure outlined in section 9.2 of 

ASTM D7520–16 (incorporated by 

reference at § 60.17), the owner or 

operator or the DCOT vendor shall 

present the plumes in front of various 

backgrounds of color and contrast 

representing conditions anticipated 

during field use such as blue sky, trees, 

and mixed backgrounds (clouds and/or 

a sparse tree stand). 

(ii) The owner or operator shall also 

have standard operating procedures 

(SOPs) in place including daily or other 

frequency quality checks to ensure the 

equipment is within manufacturing 

specifications as outlined in section 8.1 

of ASTM D7520–16 (incorporated by 

reference at § 60.17). Records shall be 

maintained in a form suitable and 

readily available for expeditious review. 

(iii) The owner or operator shall 

follow the recordkeeping procedures 

outlined in § 63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT 

certification, compliance report, data 

sheets, and all raw unaltered JPEGs used 

for opacity and certification 

determination. 

(iv) The owner or operator or the 

DCOT vendor shall have a minimum of 

four (4) independent technology users 

apply the software to determine the 

visible opacity of the 300 certification 

plumes. For each set of 25 plumes, the 

user may not exceed 15 percent opacity 

of any one reading and the average error 

shall not exceed 7.5 percent opacity. 

(v) This approval does not provide or 

imply a certification or validation of any 

vendor’s hardware or software. The 

onus to maintain and verify the 

certification and/or training of the 

DCOT camera, software, and operator in 

accordance with ASTM D7520–16 

(incorporated by reference at § 60.17) 

and this section is on the owner or 

operator, DCOT operator, and DCOT 

vendor. 

■ 7. Add §§ 60.124 and 60.125 to 

subpart L to read as follows: 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 80611 

§ 60.124 Monitoring requirements. 

(a) The owner shall comply with the 

applicable monitoring requirements 

specified in the NSPS General provision 

§ 60.13. 

(b) The owner shall prepare, and at all 

times operate according to, a SOP 

manual that describes in detail 

procedures for inspection, maintenance, 

and bag leak detection and corrective 

action plans for all baghouses (fabric 

filters or cartridge filters) used to reduce 

PM and opacity emissions from any 

affected source subject to the emissions 

standards in § 60.122. 

(c) The owner shall submit the SOP 

manual for the baghouses (fabric filters 

or cartridge collectors) described in 

paragraph (b) of this section to the 

Administrator or delegated authority for 

review and approval. 

(d) The procedures specified in the 

SOP manual for inspections and routine 

maintenance shall, at a minimum, 

include the requirements of paragraphs 

(d)(1) through (9) of this section. 

(1) Daily monitoring of the pressure 

drop across each baghouse cell. 

(2) Weekly confirmation that dust is 

being removed from hoppers through 

visual inspection, or equivalent means 

of ensuring the proper functioning of 

removal mechanisms. 

(3) Daily check of compressed air 

supply for pulse-jet baghouses. 

(4) An appropriate methodology for 

monitoring cleaning cycles to ensure 

proper operation. 

(5) Monthly check of bag cleaning 

mechanisms for proper functioning 

through visual inspection or equivalent 

means. 

(6) Monthly check of bag tension on 

reverse air and shaker-type baghouses. 

Such checks are not required for shakertype baghouses using self-tensioning 

(spring loaded) devices. 

(7) Quarterly confirmation of the 

physical integrity of the baghouse 

through visual inspection of the 

baghouse interior for air leaks. 

(8) Quarterly inspection of fans for 

wear, material buildup, and corrosion 

through visual inspection, vibration 

detectors, or equivalent means. 

(9) Continuous operation of a bag leak 

detection system. 

(e) The procedures specified in the 

SOP manual for baghouse maintenance 

shall include, at a minimum, a 

preventative maintenance schedule that 

is consistent with the baghouse 

manufacturer’s instructions for routine 

and long-term maintenance. 

(f) The bag leak detection system 

required by paragraph (d)(9) of this 

section, shall meet the specification and 

requirements of paragraphs (f)(1) 

through (8) of this section. 

(1) The bag leak detection system 

shall be certified by the manufacturer to 

be capable of detecting PM emissions at 

concentrations of 50.0 mg/dscm (0.022 

gr/dscf) or less. 

(2) The bag leak detection system 

sensor shall provide output of relative 

PM loadings. 

(3) The bag leak detection system 

shall be equipped with an alarm system 

that will alarm when an increase in 

relative particulate loadings is detected 

over a preset level. 

(4) The owner shall install and 

operate the bag leak detection system in 

a manner consistent with the guidance 

provided in EPA–454/R–98–015, Office 

of Air quality Planning and Standards 

(OAQPS) Fabric Filter Bag Leak 

Detection Guidance, (incorporated by 

reference, see § 60.17) or the 

manufacturer’s written specifications 

and recommendations for installation, 

operation, and adjustment of the system. 

(5) The initial adjustment of the 

system shall, at a minimum, consist of 

establishing the baseline output by 

adjusting the sensitivity (range) and the 

averaging period of the device, and 

establishing the alarm set points and the 

alarm delay time. 

(6) Following initial adjustment, the 

owner shall not adjust the sensitivity or 

range, averaging period, alarm set 

points, or alarm delay time, except as 

detailed in the approved SOP manual 

required under paragraph (b) of this 

section. The owner cannot increase the 

sensitivity by more than 100 percent or 

decrease the sensitivity by more than 50 

percent over a 365-day period unless 

such adjustment follows a complete 

baghouse inspection that demonstrates 

that the baghouse is in good operating 

condition. 

(7) For negative pressure, induced air 

baghouses, and positive pressure 

baghouses that are discharged to the 

atmosphere through a stack, the owner 

shall install the bag leak detector 

downstream of the baghouse and 

upstream of any wet acid gas scrubber. 

(8) Where multiple detectors are 

required, the system’s instrumentation 

and alarm may be shared among 

detectors. 

(g) The owner shall include in the 

SOP manual required by paragraph (b) 

of this section a corrective action plan 

that specifies the procedures to be 

followed in the case of a bag leak 

detection system alarm. The corrective 

action plan shall include, at a 

minimum, the procedures used to 

determine and record the time and 

cause of the alarm as well as the 

corrective actions taken to minimize 

emissions as specified in paragraphs 

(g)(1) and (2) of this section. 

(1) The procedures used to determine 

the cause of the alarm shall be initiated 

within 30 minutes of the alarm. 

(2) The cause of the alarm shall be 

alleviated by taking the necessary 

corrective action(s) that may include, 

but not be limited to, those listed in 

paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through (vi) of this 

section. 

(i) Inspecting the baghouse for air 

leaks, torn or broken filter elements, or 

any other malfunction that may cause 

an increase in emissions. 

(ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter 

media. 

(iii) Replacing defective bags or filter 

media, or otherwise repairing the 

control device. 

(iv) Sealing off a defective baghouse 

compartment. 

(v) Cleaning the bag leak detection 

system probe, or otherwise repairing the 

bag leak detection system. 

(vi) Shutting down the process 

producing the PM emissions. 

(h) Baghouses equipped with highefficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters 

as a secondary filter used to control 

emissions from any source subject to the 

PM and opacity emission standards in 

§ 60.122 are exempt from the 

requirement to be equipped with a bag 

leak detection system. The owner or 

operator shall monitor and record the 

pressure drop across each HEPA filter 

system daily. If the pressure drop is 

outside the limit(s) specified by the 

filter manufacturer, the owner or 

operator shall take appropriate 

corrective measures, which may include 

but not be limited to those given in 

paragraphs (h)(1) through (4) of this 

section. 

(1) Inspecting the filter and filter 

housing for air leaks and torn or broken 

filters. 

(2) Replacing defective filter media, or 

otherwise repairing the control device. 

(3) Sealing off a defective control 

device by routing air to other control 

devices 

(4) Shutting down the process 

producing the particulate emissions. 

(i) Baghouses followed by a wet 

electrostatic precipitator (WESP) used as 

a secondary control device for any 

source subject to the PM and opacity 

emission standards in § 60.122 are 

exempt from the requirement to be 

equipped with a bag leak detection 

system. 

(j) If a wet scrubber is used to 

demonstrate continuous compliance 

with the PM emissions standards for 

blast and reverberatory furnaces 

specified in § 60.122(a), the owner or 

operator shall monitor and record the 

pressure drop and water flow rate of the 

wet scrubber during the initial 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
80612 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

performance or periodic compliance test 

conducted to demonstrate compliance 

with the PM emissions limit under 

§ 60.122(a). Thereafter, the owner or 

operator shall monitor and record the 

pressure drop and water flow rate 

values at least once every hour and 

maintain the pressure drop and water 

flow rate at levels no lower than 30 

percent below the pressure drop and 

water flow rate measured during the 

initial performance or compliance test. 

(k) During the initial performance test 

required by § 60.123(a), or any periodic 

performance test required by 

§ 60.123(b), the owner or operator shall 

establish the value or range of values of 

the monitoring parameter(s) for each 

control device used to comply with the 

PM and opacity emission standards 

specified in § 60.122. 

(l) If an affected source is subject to 

the monitoring requirements specified 

in 40 CFR part 63, subpart X (National 

Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants from Secondary Lead 

Smelting) and those requirements are as 

stringent or more stringent than the 

monitoring requirements specified in 

paragraphs (a) through (j) of this section, 

compliance with the monitoring 

requirements specified in 40 CFR part 

63, subpart X also demonstrates 

compliance with the monitoring 

requirements specified in paragraphs (a) 

through (k) of this section. 

§ 60.125 Notification, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements. 

(a) The owner or operator shall 

comply with the applicable notification 

and recordkeeping requirements 

specified in § 60.7 and the reporting 

requirements specified in the NSPS 

General Provisions § 60.19. 

(1) Records shall be maintained in a 

form suitable and readily available for 

expeditious review, according to 

§ 60.7(f). However, electronic 

recordkeeping and reporting may be 

used if suitable for the specific case 

(e.g., by electronic media such as Excel 

spreadsheet, on CD or hard copy), and 

when required by this subpart. 

(2) Records shall be kept on site for 

at least 2 years after the date of 

occurrence, measurement, maintenance, 

corrective action, report, or record, 

according to § 60.7(f). 

(b) The SOP manual required in 

§ 60.124(b) shall be submitted to the 

Administrator in electronic format for 

review and approval of the initial 

submittal and whenever an update is 

made to the procedure. 

(c) The owner or operator shall 

maintain for a period of 2 years, records 

of the information listed in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (10) of this section. 

(1) Electronic records of the bag leak 

detection system output. 

(2) An identification of the date and 

time of all bag leak detection system 

alarms, the time that procedures to 

determine the cause of the alarm were 

initiated, the cause of the alarm, an 

explanation of the corrective actions 

taken, and the date and time the cause 

of the alarm was corrected. 

(3) All records of inspections and 

maintenance activities required under 

§ 60.124(d) as part of the practices 

described in the SOP manual for 

baghouses required under § 60.124(b). 

(4) Electronic records of the pressure 

drop and water flow rate values for wet 

scrubbers used to control PM emissions 

from blast or reverberatory furnaces as 

required in § 60.124(j). 

(5) Records of the occurrence and 

duration of each malfunction of 

operation (i.e., process equipment) or 

the air pollution control equipment and 

monitoring equipment. 

(6) Records of actions taken during 

periods of malfunction to minimize 

emissions in accordance with § 60.11(d), 

including corrective actions to restore 

malfunctioning process and air 

pollution control and monitoring 

equipment to its normal or usual 

manner of operation. 

(7) Records of all alarms from the bag 

leak detection system specified in 

§ 60.124(d)(9). 

(8) Records maintained as part of the 

practices described in the SOP manual 

for baghouses required under 

§ 60.124(b), including an explanation of 

the periods when the procedures were 

not followed, and the corrective actions 

taken. 

(9) Record of the periods when the 

pressure drop and water flow rate of wet 

scrubbers used to control process 

fugitive sources dropped below the 

levels established in § 60.124(j), and an 

explanation of the corrective actions 

taken. 

(10) Records of the rationale for the 

control device monitoring parameter 

value(s), established as specified in 

§ 60.124(k), monitoring frequency, and 

averaging time. Include all data and 

calculations used to develop the value 

and a description of why the value, 

monitoring frequency, and averaging 

time demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the applicable 

emission standard. 

(d) In addition to the reporting 

requirements specified in § 60.7 and 

§ 60.19, the owner or operator shall 

submit the results of the initial and 

periodic performance tests within 60 

days after the date of completing each 

performance test required by this 

subpart, following the procedures 

specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through 

(3) of this section. 

(1) Data collected using test methods 

supported by the EPA’s Electronic 

Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the 

EPA’s ERT website (https://

www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) 

at the time of the test. Submit the results 

of the performance test to the EPA via 

the Compliance and Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can 

be accessed through the EPA’s Central 

Data Exchange (CDX) (https://

cdx.epa.gov). The data shall be 

submitted in a file format generated 

using the EPA’s ERT. Alternatively, the 

owner or operator may submit an 

electronic file consistent with the 

extensible markup language (XML) 

schema listed on the EPA’s ERT 

website. 

(2) Data collected using test methods 

that are not supported by the EPA’s ERT 

as listed on the EPA’s ERT website at 

the time of the test. The results of the 

performance test shall be included as an 

attachment in the ERT or an alternate 

electronic file consistent with the XML 

schema listed on the EPA’s ERT 

website. Submit the ERT generated 

package or alternative file to the EPA via 

CEDRI. 

(3) Confidential business information 

(CBI). 

(i) The EPA will make all the 

information submitted through CEDRI 

available to the public without further 

notice to the owner or operator. Do not 

use CEDRI to submit information that 

the owner or operator claims as CBI. 

Although we do not expect persons to 

assert a claim of CBI, if the owner or 

operator wishes to assert a CBI claim for 

some of the information submitted 

under paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this 

section, the owner or operator shall 

submit a complete file, including 

information claimed to be CBI, to the 

EPA. 

(ii) The file shall be generated using 

the EPA’s ERT or an alternate electronic 

file consistent with the XML schema 

listed on the EPA’s ERT website. 

(iii) Clearly mark the part or all of the 

information that the owner or operator 

claims to be CBI. Information not 

marked as CBI may be authorized for 

public release without prior notice. 

Information marked as CBI will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

(iv) The preferred method to receive 

CBI is for it to be transmitted 

electronically using email attachments, 

File Transfer Protocol, or other online 

file sharing services. Electronic 

submissions shall be transmitted 

directly to the OAQPS CBI Office at the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 80613 

email address oaqpscbi@epa.gov, and as 

described above, should include clear 

CBI markings and be flagged to the 

attention of the Group Leader, 

Measurement Policy Group. If assistance 

is needed with submitting large 

electronic files that exceed the file size 

limit for email attachments, and if the 

owner or operator does not have a file 

sharing service, please email oaqpscbi@

epa.gov to request a file transfer link. 

(v) If the owner or operator cannot 

transmit the file electronically, the 

owner or operator may send CBI 

information through the postal service 

to the following address: OAQPS 

Document Control Officer (C404–02), 

OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, North 

Carolina 27711, Attention Group 

Leader, Measurement Policy Group. The 

mailed CBI material should be double 

wrapped and clearly marked. Any CBI 

markings should not show through the 

outer envelope. 

(vi) All CBI claims shall be asserted at 

the time of submission. Anything 

submitted using CEDRI cannot later be 

claimed CBI. Furthermore, under CAA 

section 114(c), emissions data is not 

entitled to confidential treatment, and 

the EPA is required to make emissions 

data available to the public. Thus, 

emissions data will not be protected as 

CBI and will be made publicly available. 

(vii) The owner or operator shall 

submit the same file submitted to the 

CBI office with the CBI omitted to the 

EPA through CEDRI via the EPA’s CDX 

as described in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) 

of this section. 

(e) Claims of EPA system outage. If 

the owner or operator is required to 

electronically submit a report through 

CEDRI in the EPA’s CDX, the owner or 

operator may assert a claim of EPA 

system outage for failure to timely 

comply with that reporting requirement. 

To assert a claim of EPA system outage, 

the owner or operator shall meet the 

requirements outlined in paragraphs 

(e)(1) through (7) of this section. 

(1) The owner or operator shall have 

been or will be precluded from 

accessing CEDRI and submitting a 

required report within the time 

prescribed due to an outage of either the 

EPA’s CEDRI or CDX systems. 

(2) The outage shall have occurred 

within the period of time beginning five 

business days prior to the date that the 

submission is due. 

(3) The outage may be planned or 

unplanned. 

(4) The owner or operator shall 

submit notification to the Administrator 

in writing as soon as possible following 

the date the owner or operator first 

knew, or through due diligence should 

have known, that the event may cause 

or has caused a delay in reporting. 

(5) The owner or operator shall 

provide to the Administrator a written 

description identifying: 

(i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX 

or CEDRI was accessed and the system 

was unavailable; 

(ii) A rationale for attributing the 

delay in reporting beyond the regulatory 

deadline to EPA system outage; 

(iii) A description of measures taken 

or to be taken to minimize the delay in 

reporting; and 

(iv) The date by which the owner or 

operator proposes to report, or if the 

owner or operator has already met the 

reporting requirement at the time of the 

notification, the date the owner or 

operator reported. 

(6) The decision to accept the claim 

of EPA system outage and allow an 

extension to the reporting deadline is 

solely within the discretion of the 

Administrator. 

(7) In any circumstance, the report 

shall be submitted electronically as soon 

as possible after the outage is resolved. 

(f) Claims of force majeure. If the 

owner or operator is required to 

electronically submit a report through 

CEDRI in the EPA’s CDX, the owner or 

operator may assert a claim of force 

majeure for failure to timely comply 

with that reporting requirement. To 

assert a claim of force majeure, the 

owner or operator shall meet the 

requirements outlined in paragraphs 

(f)(1) through (5) of this section. 

(1) The owner or operator may submit 

a claim if a force majeure event is about 

to occur, occurs, or has occurred or 

there are lingering effects from such an 

event within the period of time 

beginning five business days prior to the 

date the submission is due. For the 

purposes of this section, a force majeure 

event is defined as an event that will be 

or has been caused by circumstances 

beyond the control of the affected 

facility, its contractors, or any entity 

controlled by the affected facility that 

prevents the owner or operator from 

complying with the requirement to 

submit a report electronically within the 

time period prescribed. Examples of 

such events are acts of nature (e.g., 

hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), acts 

of war or terrorism, or equipment failure 

or safety hazard beyond the control of 

the affected facility (e.g., large scale 

power outage). 

(2) The owner or operator shall 

submit notification to the Administrator 

in writing as soon as possible following 

the date the owner or operator first 

knew, or through due diligence should 

have known, that the event may cause 

or has caused a delay in reporting. 

(3) The owner or operator shall 

provide to the Administrator: 

(i) A written description of the force 

majeure event; 

(ii) A rationale for attributing the 

delay in reporting beyond the regulatory 

deadline to the force majeure event; 

(iii) A description of measures taken 

or to be taken to minimize the delay in 

reporting; and 

(iv) The date by which the owner or 

operator proposes to report, or if the 

owner or operator has already met the 

reporting requirement at the time of the 

notification, the date the owner or 

operator reported. 

(4) The decision to accept the claim 

of force majeure and allow an extension 

to the reporting deadline is solely 

within the discretion of the 

Administrator. 

(5) In any circumstance, the reporting 

shall occur as soon as possible after the 

force majeure event occurs. 

■ 8. Add subpart La consisting of 

§§ 60.120a through 60.125a to part 60 to 

read as follows: 

Subpart La—Standards of Performance for 

Secondary Lead Smelters for Which 

Construction, Reconstruction, or 

Modification Commenced After December 1, 

2022 

Sec. 

60.120a Applicability and designation of 

affected facility. 

60.121a Definitions. 

60.122a Standard for particulate matter. 

60.123a Test methods and procedures. 

60.124a Monitoring requirements. 

60.125a Notification, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements. 

Subpart La—Standards of 

Performance for Secondary Lead 

Smelters for Which Construction, 

Reconstruction, or Modification 

Commenced After December 1, 2022 

§ 60.120a Applicability and designation of 

affected facility. 

(a) The provisions of this subpart are 

applicable to the following affected 

facilities in secondary lead smelters: 

Process fugitive emissions sources, blast 

(cupola) furnaces, and reverberatory 

furnaces. 

(b) Any facility under paragraph (a) of 

this section that commences 

construction, reconstruction, or 

modification after November 20, 2023, 

is subject to the requirements of this 

subpart. 

§ 60.121a Definitions. 

As used in this subpart, all terms not 

defined herein shall have the meaning 

given them in the Act and in subpart A 

of this part. 

Blast furnace means any furnace used 

to recover metal from slag. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
80614 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

Lead means elemental lead or alloys 

in which the predominant component is 

lead. 

Process fugitive emissions source 

means a source of particulate matter 

(PM) emissions at a secondary lead 

smelter that is associated with lead 

smelting or refining including, but not 

limited to, smelting furnace charging 

points; smelting furnace lead and slag 

taps; pot and refining furnaces; and 

casting kettles. 

Reverberatory furnace includes the 

following types of reverberatory 

furnaces: stationary, rotating, rocking, 

and tilting. 

Secondary lead smelter means any 

facility producing lead from a leadbearing scrap material by smelting to the 

metallic form. 

§ 60.122a Standard for particulate matter. 

(a) On and after the date on which the 

performance test required to be 

conducted by § 60.8 is completed, no 

owner or operator subject to the 

provisions of this subpart shall 

discharge or cause the discharge into the 

atmosphere from a blast (cupola) or 

reverberatory furnace any gases which: 

(1) Contain PM in excess of 10 

milligrams per dry standard cubic 

meter, mg/dscm (0.0044 grains per dry 

standard cubic feet, gr/dscf). 

(2) Exhibit opacity greater than 5 

percent. 

(b) On and after the date on which the 

performance test required to be 

conducted by § 60.8 is completed, no 

owner or operator subject to the 

provisions of this subpart shall 

discharge or cause the discharge into the 

atmosphere from any process fugitive 

emissions source any gases which: 

(1) Contain PM in excess of 4.9 mg/ 

dscm (0.0021 grains per dry standard 

cubic feet, gr/dscf). 

(2) Exhibit opacity greater than 5 

percent. 

(c) The PM and opacity emissions 

standards specified in paragraphs (a) 

and (b) of this section apply at all times, 

including periods of startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction. 

§ 60.123a Test methods and procedures. 

(a) Initial performance tests. The 

owner or operator shall conduct 

performance tests to demonstrate initial 

compliance with the PM and opacity 

emission standards specified in 

§ 60.122a. 

(b) Periodic performance tests. 

Following the initial compliance 

demonstration required by paragraph (a) 

of this section, the owner or operator 

shall conduct periodic performance 

tests to demonstrate compliance with 

the PM and opacity emissions standards 

specified in § 60.122a according to the 

schedule specified in paragraph (b)(1) or 

(2) of this section. 

(1) Conduct performance tests no later 

than 12 months following the previous 

compliance test. 

(2) Conduct performance tests up to 

24 calendar months following the 

previous compliance test if the previous 

compliance test measured PM emissions 

equal to or less than the concentrations 

specified in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) 

of this section and the owner or operator 

has obtained approval from the 

Administrator for a written request to 

extend the period of the periodic 

performance test. The extension request 

will be deemed automatically approved 

if the owner or operator submits the 

results of a PM performance test equal 

to or less than the applicable 

concentrations specified in paragraphs 

(b)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section, the 

owner or operator submits the request 

for the extension within 4 months after 

the subject compliance test, and the 

Administrator does not provide a 

response to such request within 6 

months of submission. 

(i) 5 mg/dscm for blast and 

reverberatory furnaces. 

(ii) 2.4 mg/dscm for process fugitive 

emissions sources. 

(c) Test methods. In conducting the 

performance tests required in § 60.8, the 

owner or operator shall use the 

following EPA reference test methods 

and procedures in appendix A of this 

part or other methods and procedures as 

specified in this section, except as 

provided in § 60.8(b). 

(1) EPA Method 1 at appendix A–1 to 

this part for selecting sampling port 

locations and the number of traverse 

points. 

(2) EPA Method 2 at appendix A–1 to 

this part at appendix A–1 to this part or 

EPA Method 5D at appendix A–3 to this 

part, section 8.3 for positive fabric 

filters, to measure the volumetric flow 

rate of the gas stream. 

(3) EPA Method 3, 3A, 3B, or 3C at 

appendix A–1 to this part to determine 

the dry molecular weight of the stack 

gas and the concentrations of carbon 

dioxide and oxygen in the sample gas. 

(4) EPA Method 4 at appendix A–3 to 

this part to determine the moisture 

content of the gas stream. 

(5) EPA Method 5 or 5D at appendix 

A–3 to this part for measuring PM 

concentrations. The EPA Method 5 or 

5D tests shall be conducted during 

representative periods of furnace 

operation, including charging and 

tapping, and the sampling time and 

sample volume for each test run shall be 

at least 60 minutes and 0.90 dscm (31.8 

dscf), respectively. As an alternative to 

using EPA Method 5, owners or 

operators may measure PM emissions by 

the following methods: 

(i) EPA Method 12 at appendix A–5 

to this part (see section 16.1 of Method 

12) to measure inorganic lead 

concentrations and PM. 

(ii) EPA Method 29 at appendix A–8 

to this part to measure metal (lead) 

concentrations and PM (see section 1.2 

of Method 29). 

(6) EPA Method 9 at appendix A–4 to 

this part and the procedures specified in 

§ 60.11 for determining opacity. Owners 

or operators may use the following 

methods as alternatives to EPA Method 

9 as applicable and appropriate: 

(i) EPA Method 22 (Visual 

Determination of Fugitive Emissions) at 

appendix A–7 to this part for 

determining no visible emissions. 

(ii) ASTM D7520–16 (incorporated by 

reference at § 60.17) is an acceptable 

alternative with the specified conditions 

in paragraphs (c)(6)(ii)(A) through (E) of 

this section. 

(A) During the digital camera opacity 

technique (DCOT) certification 

procedure outlined in section 9.2 of 

ASTM D7520–16 (incorporated by 

reference at § 60.17), the owner or 

operator or the DCOT vendor shall 

present the plumes in front of various 

backgrounds of color and contrast 

representing conditions anticipated 

during field use such as blue sky, trees, 

and mixed backgrounds (clouds and/or 

a sparse tree stand). 

(B) The owner or operator shall also 

have standard operating procedures 

(SOPs) in place including daily or other 

frequency quality checks to ensure the 

equipment is within manufacturing 

specifications as outlined in section 8.1 

of ASTM D7520–16 (incorporated by 

reference at § 60.17). 

(C) The owner or operator shall follow 

the recordkeeping procedures outlined 

in § 63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT 

certification, compliance report, data 

sheets, and all raw unaltered JPEGs used 

for opacity and certification 

determination. 

(D) The owner or operator or the 

DCOT vendor shall have a minimum of 

four (4) independent technology users 

apply the software to determine the 

visible opacity of the 300 certification 

plumes. For each set of 25 plumes, the 

user may not exceed 15 percent opacity 

of any one reading and the average error 

shall not exceed 7.5 percent opacity. 

(E) This approval does not provide or 

imply a certification or validation of any 

vendor’s hardware or software. The 

onus to maintain and verify the 

certification and/or training of the 

DCOT camera, software, and operator in 

accordance with ASTM D7520–16 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 80615 

(incorporated by reference at § 60.17) 

and this section is on the owner or 

operator, DCOT operator, and DCOT 

vendor. 

§ 60.124a Monitoring requirements. 

(a) The owner shall comply with the 

applicable monitoring requirements 

specified in § 60.13. 

(b) The owner shall prepare, and at all 

times operate according to, an SOP 

manual that describes in detail 

procedures for inspection, maintenance, 

and bag leak detection and corrective 

action plans for all baghouses (fabric 

filters or cartridge filters) used to reduce 

PM and opacity emissions from any 

affected source subject to the emissions 

standards in § 60.122a. 

(c) The owner shall submit the SOP 

manual for the baghouses (fabric filters 

or cartridge collectors) described in 

paragraph (b) of this section to the 

Administrator or delegated authority for 

review and approval. 

(d) The procedures specified in the 

SOP manual for inspections and routine 

maintenance shall, at a minimum, 

include the requirements of paragraphs 

(d)(1) through (9) of this section. 

(1) Daily monitoring of the pressure 

drop across each baghouse cell. 

(2) Weekly confirmation that dust is 

being removed from hoppers through 

visual inspection, or equivalent means 

of ensuring the proper functioning of 

removal mechanisms. 

(3) Daily check of compressed air 

supply for pulse-jet baghouses. 

(4) An appropriate methodology for 

monitoring cleaning cycles to ensure 

proper operation. 

(5) Monthly check of bag cleaning 

mechanisms for proper functioning 

through visual inspection or equivalent 

means. 

(6) Monthly check of bag tension on 

reverse air and shaker-type baghouses. 

Such checks are not required for shakertype baghouses using self-tensioning 

(spring loaded) devices. 

(7) Quarterly confirmation of the 

physical integrity of the baghouse 

through visual inspection of the 

baghouse interior for air leaks. 

(8) Quarterly inspection of fans for 

wear, material buildup, and corrosion 

through visual inspection, vibration 

detectors, or equivalent means. 

(9) Continuous operation of a bag leak 

detection system. 

(e) The procedures specified in the 

SOP manual for baghouse maintenance 

shall include, at a minimum, a 

preventative maintenance schedule that 

is consistent with the baghouse 

manufacturer’s instructions for routine 

and long-term maintenance. 

(f) The bag leak detection system 

required by paragraph (d)(9) of this 

section, shall meet the specification and 

requirements of paragraphs (f)(1) 

through (8) of this section. 

(1) The bag leak detection system 

shall be certified by the manufacturer to 

be capable of detecting PM emissions at 

concentrations of 50.0 mg/dscm (0.022 

gr/dscf) or less. 

(2) The bag leak detection system 

sensor shall provide output of relative 

PM loadings. 

(3) The bag leak detection system 

shall be equipped with an alarm system 

that will alarm when an increase in 

relative particulate loadings is detected 

over a preset level. 

(4) The owner shall install and 

operate the bag leak detection system in 

a manner consistent with the guidance 

provided in EPA–454/R–98–015, Office 

of Air quality Planning and Standards 

(OAQPS) Fabric Filter Bag Leak 

Detection Guidance (incorporated by 

reference, see § 60.17) or the 

manufacturer’s written specifications 

and recommendations for installation, 

operation, and adjustment of the system. 

(5) The initial adjustment of the 

system shall, at a minimum, consist of 

establishing the baseline output by 

adjusting the sensitivity (range) and the 

averaging period of the device, and 

establishing the alarm set points and the 

alarm delay time. 

(6) Following initial adjustment, the 

owner shall not adjust the sensitivity or 

range, averaging period, alarm set 

points, or alarm delay time, except as 

detailed in the approved SOP manual 

required under paragraph (b) of this 

section. The owner cannot increase the 

sensitivity by more than 100 percent or 

decrease the sensitivity by more than 50 

percent over a 365-day period unless 

such adjustment follows a complete 

baghouse inspection that demonstrates 

that the baghouse is in good operating 

condition. 

(7) For negative pressure, induced air 

baghouses, and positive pressure 

baghouses that are discharged to the 

atmosphere through a stack, the owner 

shall install the bag leak detector 

downstream of the baghouse and 

upstream of any wet acid gas scrubber. 

(8) Where multiple detectors are 

required, the system’s instrumentation 

and alarm may be shared among 

detectors. 

(g) The owner shall include in the 

SOP manual required by paragraph (b) 

of this section a corrective action plan 

that specifies the procedures to be 

followed in the case of a bag leak 

detection system alarm. The corrective 

action plan shall include, at a 

minimum, the procedures used to 

determine and record the time and 

cause of the alarm as well as the 

corrective actions taken to minimize 

emissions as specified in paragraphs 

(g)(1) and (2) of this section. 

(1) The procedures used to determine 

the cause of the alarm shall be initiated 

within 30 minutes of the alarm. 

(2) The cause of the alarm shall be 

alleviated by taking the necessary 

corrective action(s) that may include, 

but not be limited to, those listed in 

paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through (vi) of this 

section. 

(i) Inspecting the baghouse for air 

leaks, torn or broken filter elements, or 

any other malfunction that may cause 

an increase in emissions. 

(ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter 

media. 

(iii) Replacing defective bags or filter 

media, or otherwise repairing the 

control device. 

(iv) Sealing off a defective baghouse 

compartment. 

(v) Cleaning the bag leak detection 

system probe, or otherwise repairing the 

bag leak detection system. 

(vi) Shutting down the process 

producing the PM emissions. 

(h) Baghouses equipped with highefficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters 

as a secondary filter used to control 

emissions from any source subject to the 

PM and opacity emission standards in 

§ 60.122a are exempt from the 

requirement to be equipped with a bag 

leak detection system. The owner or 

operator shall monitor and record the 

pressure drop across each HEPA filter 

system daily. If the pressure drop is 

outside the limit(s) specified by the 

filter manufacturer, the owner or 

operator shall take appropriate 

corrective measures, which may include 

but not be limited to those given in 

paragraphs (h)(1) through (4) of this 

section. 

(1) Inspecting the filter and filter 

housing for air leaks and torn or broken 

filters. 

(2) Replacing defective filter media, or 

otherwise repairing the control device. 

(3) Sealing off a defective control 

device by routing air to other control 

devices. 

(4) Shutting down the process 

producing the particulate emissions. 

(i) Baghouses followed by a wet 

electrostatic precipitator (WESP) used as 

a secondary control device for any 

source subject to the PM and opacity 

emission standards in § 60.122a are 

exempt from the requirement to be 

equipped with a bag leak detection 

system. 

(j) If a wet scrubber is used to 

demonstrate continuous compliance 

with the PM emissions standards for 

blast and reverberatory furnaces 

specified in § 60.122a(a), the owner or 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
80616 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

operator shall monitor and record the 

pressure drop and water flow rate of the 

wet scrubber during the initial 

performance or annual compliance test 

conducted to demonstrate compliance 

with the PM emissions limit under 

§ 60.122a(a). Thereafter, the owner or 

operator shall monitor and record the 

pressure drop and water flow rate 

values at least once every hour and 

maintain the pressure drop and water 

flow rate at levels no lower than 30 

percent below the pressure drop and 

water flow rate measured during the 

initial performance or compliance test. 

(k) During the initial performance test 

required by § 60.123a(a), or any periodic 

performance test required by 

§ 60.123a(b), the owner or operator shall 

establish the value or range of values of 

the monitoring parameter(s) for each 

control device used to comply with the 

PM and opacity emission standards 

specified in § 60.122a. 

(l) If an affected source is subject to 

the monitoring requirements specified 

in 40 CFR part 63, subpart X (National 

Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants from Secondary Lead 

Smelting) and those requirements are as 

stringent or more stringent than the 

monitoring requirements specified in 

paragraphs (a) through (j) of this section 

compliance with 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart X also demonstrates compliance 

with the monitoring requirements 

specified in paragraphs (a) through (k) 

of this section. 

§ 60.125a Notification, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements. 

(a) The owner or operator shall 

comply with the applicable notification 

and recordkeeping requirements 

specified in § 60.7 and the reporting 

requirements specified in § 60.19. 

(1) Records shall be maintained in a 

form suitable and readily available for 

expeditious review, according to 

§ 60.7(f). However, electronic 

recordkeeping and reporting may be 

used if suitable for the specific case 

(e.g., by electronic media such as Excel 

spreadsheet, on CD or hard copy), and 

when required by this subpart. 

(2) Records shall be kept on site for 

at least 2 years after the date of 

occurrence, measurement, maintenance, 

corrective action, report, or record, 

according to § 60.7(f). 

(b) The SOP manual required in 

§ 60.124a(b) shall be submitted to the 

Administrator in electronic format for 

review and approval of the initial 

submittal and whenever an update is 

made to the procedure. 

(c) The owner or operator shall 

maintain for a period of 2 years, records 

of the information listed in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (10) of this section. 

(1) Electronic records of the bag leak 

detection system output. 

(2) An identification of the date and 

time of all bag leak detection system 

alarms, the time that procedures to 

determine the cause of the alarm were 

initiated, the cause of the alarm, an 

explanation of the corrective actions 

taken, and the date and time the cause 

of the alarm was corrected. 

(3) All records of inspections and 

maintenance activities required under 

§ 60.124a(d) as part of the practices 

described in the SOP manual for 

baghouses required under § 60.124a(b). 

(4) Electronic records of the pressure 

drop and water flow rate values for wet 

scrubbers used to control PM emissions 

from blast or reverberatory furnaces as 

required in § 60.124a(j). 

(5) Records of the occurrence and 

duration of each malfunction of 

operation (i.e., process equipment) or 

the air pollution control equipment and 

monitoring equipment. 

(6) Records of actions taken during 

periods of malfunction to minimize 

emissions in accordance with § 60.11(d), 

including corrective actions to restore 

malfunctioning process and air 

pollution control and monitoring 

equipment to its normal or usual 

manner of operation. 

(7) Records of all alarms and 

corrective actions taken for the bag leak 

detection system specified in 

§ 60.124a(d)(9). 

(8) Records maintained as part of the 

practices described in the SOP manual 

for baghouses required under 

§ 60.124a(b), including an explanation 

of the periods when the procedures 

were not followed, and the corrective 

actions taken. 

(9) Record of the periods when the 

pressure drop and water flow rate of wet 

scrubbers used to control process 

fugitive sources dropped below the 

levels established in § 60.124a(j), and an 

explanation of the corrective actions 

taken. 

(10) Records of the rationale for the 

control device monitoring parameter 

value(s), established as specified in 

§ 60.124a(k), monitoring frequency, and 

averaging time. Include all data and 

calculations used to develop the value 

and a description of why the value, 

monitoring frequency, and averaging 

time demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the applicable 

emission standard. 

(d) In addition to the reporting 

requirements specified in §§ 60.7 and 

60.19, within 60 days after the date of 

completing each performance test 

required by this subpart, the owner or 

operator shall submit the results of the 

initial and periodic performance tests 

following the procedures as specified in 

paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this 

section. 

(1) Data collected using test methods 

supported by the EPA’s Electronic 

Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the 

EPA’s ERT website (https://

www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) 

at the time of the test. Submit the results 

of the performance test to the EPA via 

the Compliance and Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can 

be accessed through the EPA’s Central 

Data Exchange (CDX) (https://

cdx.epa.gov). The data shall be 

submitted in a file format generated 

using the EPA’s ERT. Alternatively, the 

owner or operator may submit an 

electronic file consistent with the 

extensible markup language (XML) 

schema listed on the EPA’s ERT 

website. 

(2) Data collected using test methods 

that are not supported by the EPA’s ERT 

as listed on the EPA’s ERT website at 

the time of the test. The results of the 

performance test shall be included as an 

attachment in the ERT or an alternate 

electronic file consistent with the XML 

schema listed on the EPA’s ERT 

website. Submit the ERT generated 

package or alternative file to the EPA via 

CEDRI. 

(3) Confidential business information 

(CBI). (i) The EPA will make all the 

information submitted through CEDRI 

available to the public without further 

notice to the owner or operator. Do not 

use CEDRI to submit information the 

owner or operator claims as CBI. 

Although we do not expect persons to 

assert a claim of CBI, if the owner or 

operator wishes to assert a CBI claim for 

some of the information submitted 

under paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this 

section, the owner or operator shall 

submit a complete file, including 

information claimed to be CBI, to the 

EPA. 

(ii) The file shall be generated using 

the EPA’s ERT or an alternate electronic 

file consistent with the XML schema 

listed on the EPA’s ERT website. 

(iii) Clearly mark the part or all of the 

information that the owner or operator 

claims to be CBI. Information not 

marked as CBI may be authorized for 

public release without prior notice. 

Information marked as CBI will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

(iv) The preferred method to receive 

CBI is for it to be transmitted 

electronically using email attachments, 

File Transfer Protocol, or other online 

file sharing services. Electronic 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 80617 

submissions shall be transmitted 

directly to the OAQPS CBI Office at the 

email address oaqpscbi@epa.gov, and as 

described above, should include clear 

CBI markings and be flagged to the 

attention of the Group Leader, 

Measurement Policy Group. If assistance 

is needed with submitting large 

electronic files that exceed the file size 

limit for email attachments, and if the 

owner or operator does not have a file 

sharing service, please email oaqpscbi@

epa.gov to request a file transfer link. 

(v) If the owner or operator cannot 

transmit the file electronically, the 

owner or operator may send CBI 

information through the postal service 

to the following address: OAQPS 

Document Control Officer (C404–02), 

OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, North 

Carolina 27711, Attention Group 

Leader, Measurement Policy Group. The 

mailed CBI material should be double 

wrapped and clearly marked. Any CBI 

markings should not show through the 

outer envelope. 

(vi) All CBI claims shall be asserted at 

the time of submission. Anything 

submitted using CEDRI cannot later be 

claimed CBI. Furthermore, under CAA 

section 114(c), emissions data is not 

entitled to confidential treatment, and 

the EPA is required to make emissions 

data available to the public. Thus, 

emissions data will not be protected as 

CBI and will be made publicly available. 

(vii) The owner or operator shall 

submit the same file submitted to the 

CBI office with the CBI omitted to the 

EPA through CEDRI via the EPA’s CDX 

as described in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) 

of this section. 

(e) If the owner or operator is required 

to electronically submit a report through 

CEDRI in the EPA’s CDX, the owner or 

operator may assert a claim of EPA 

system outage for failure to timely 

comply with that reporting requirement. 

To assert a claim of EPA system outage, 

the owner or operator shall meet the 

requirements outlined in paragraphs 

(e)(1) through (7) of this section. 

(1) The owner or operator shall have 

been or will be precluded from 

accessing CEDRI and submitting a 

required report within the time 

prescribed due to an outage of either the 

EPA’s CEDRI or CDX systems. 

(2) The outage shall have occurred 

within the period of time beginning five 

business days prior to the date that the 

submission is due. 

(3) The outage may be planned or 

unplanned. 

(4) The owner or operator shall 

submit notification to the Administrator 

in writing as soon as possible following 

the date the owner or operator first 

knew, or through due diligence should 

have known, that the event may cause 

or has caused a delay in reporting. 

(5) The owner or operator shall 

provide to the Administrator a written 

description identifying: 

(i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX 

or CEDRI was accessed and the system 

was unavailable; 

(ii) A rationale for attributing the 

delay in reporting beyond the regulatory 

deadline to EPA system outage; 

(iii) A description of measures taken 

or to be taken to minimize the delay in 

reporting; and 

(iv) The date by which the owner or 

operator propose to report, or if the 

owner or operator has already met the 

reporting requirement at the time of the 

notification, the date the owner or 

operator reported. 

(6) The decision to accept the claim 

of EPA system outage and allow an 

extension to the reporting deadline is 

solely within the discretion of the 

Administrator. 

(7) In any circumstance, the report 

shall be submitted electronically as soon 

as possible after the outage is resolved. 

(f) If the owner or operator is required 

to electronically submit a report through 

CEDRI in the EPA’s CDX, the owner or 

operator may assert a claim of force 

majeure for failure to timely comply 

with that reporting requirement. To 

assert a claim of force majeure, the 

owner or operator shall meet the 

requirements outlined in paragraphs 

(f)(1) through (5) of this section. 

(1) The owner or operator may submit 

a claim if a force majeure event is about 

to occur, occurs, or has occurred or 

there are lingering effects from such an 

event within the period of time 

beginning five business days prior to the 

date the submission is due. For the 

purposes of this section, a force majeure 

event is defined as an event that will be 

or has been caused by circumstances 

beyond the control of the affected 

facility, its contractors, or any entity 

controlled by the affected facility that 

prevents the owner or operator from 

complying with the requirement to 

submit a report electronically within the 

time period prescribed. Examples of 

such events are acts of nature (e.g., 

hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), acts 

of war or terrorism, or equipment failure 

or safety hazard beyond the control of 

the affected facility (e.g., large scale 

power outage). 

(2) The owner or operator shall 

submit notification to the Administrator 

in writing as soon as possible following 

the date the owner or operator first 

knew, or through due diligence should 

have known, that the event may cause 

or has caused a delay in reporting. 

(3) The owner or operator shall 

provide to the Administrator: 

(i) A written description of the force 

majeure event; 

(ii) A rationale for attributing the 

delay in reporting beyond the regulatory 

deadline to the force majeure event; 

(iii) A description of measures taken 

or to be taken to minimize the delay in 

reporting; and 

(iv) The date by which the owner or 

operator proposes to report, or if the 

owner or operator has already met the 

reporting requirement at the time of the 

notification, the date the owner or 

operator reported. 

(4) The decision to accept the claim 

of force majeure and allow an extension 

to the reporting deadline is solely 

within the discretion of the 

Administrator. 

(5) In any circumstance, the reporting 

shall occur as soon as possible after the 

force majeure event occurs. 

[FR Doc. 2023–25275 Filed 11–17–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 52 

[WC Docket Nos. 13–97, 07–243, 20–67; IB 

Docket No. 16–155; FCC 23–75; FR ID 

183540] 

Numbering Policies for Modern 

Communications 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) adopts rules regarding 

direct access to numbers by providers of 

interconnected Voice over internet 

Protocol (VoIP) services. The 

Commission takes this action in 

furtherance of Congress’ directive in the 

Pallone-Thune Telephone Robocall 

Abuse Criminal Enforcement and 

Deterrence (TRACED) Act to examine 

ways to reduce access to telephone 

numbers by potential perpetrators of 

illegal robocalls. These actions 

safeguard U.S. numbering resources and 

consumers, protect national security 

interests, promote public safety, and 

reduce opportunities for regulatory 

arbitrage. 

DATES: Effective December 20, 2023, 

except for the amendments to 47 CFR 

52.15(g)(3)(ii)(B) through (F), (I), (K), (L), 

and (N) and (g)(3)(x)(A) (amendatory 

instruction 3), which are delayed 

indefinitely. The amendments to 47 CFR 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1